Cejas v. Paramo et al

Filing 111

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Plaintiff's 97 MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Andrew A. Cejas. Objections to R&R due by 10/1/2019 and Replies due by 10/10/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 9/9/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 14-CV-1923-WQH(WVG)

ANDREW A. CEJAS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

v.

14
15
16

DANIEL PARAMO et al.,

[Doc. No. 97.]

Defendants.

17

Plaintiff moves to strike all thirteen affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answer to

18

the First Amended Complaint. This Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion to

19

strike be DENIED in its entirety.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint with leave of Court.

22

(Doc. No. 59.) Defendants filed an Answer on May 10, 2019 after motion practice, which

23

resulted in the Court granting-in-part a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 90.) The Answer

24

contains thirteen affirmative defenses along with responses to the factual and preamble

25

paragraphs from the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff in turn, filed a “response” in the

26

form of a motion to “strike or set aside” Defendants’ affirmative defenses. (Doc. No. 97.)

27

The motion is a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the Answer. In many places, Plaintiff

28

simply asserts that he agrees or disagrees with corresponding portions of the Answer. (See,
1
14-CV-1923-WQH(WVG)

1

e.g., Doc. No. 97 at ¶¶ 1-2, 4-7 (agreeing); 3 (disagreeing).) In response to Defendants’

2

contentions that they “lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the

3

remaining allegations, and on that basis, deny the allegations,” (see, e.g., Doc. No. 94 ¶¶ 2,

4

9, 11-13, 16-17, 23-24, 28-29, 38), Plaintiff asserts that Defendants do have sufficient

5

knowledge and information to admit the allegations, (e.g., id., at ¶¶ 2, 7, 9-17, 19, 23-24,

6

28-30, 32, 34, 38). As for the thirteen affirmative defenses, Plaintiff attempts to argue the

7

substantive merits of each defense. For example, in response to Defendants’ assertion of

8

the qualified immunity defense (Doc. No. 94 at 5), Plaintiff argues:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct
was unconstitutional, and the federal First Amendment rights asserted [were]
clearly established at the time of the alleged First Amendment violations.
Defendants had fair notice that retaliation violated the First Amendment.
Defendant[] Rutledge[’s] conduct did violate clearly established law of which
a reasonable person would have known, and Rutledge[’s] action did not
reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Defendant[] Rutledge
violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, and [is] not entitled to qualified
immunity. Defendant[] Rutledge did not act within the scope of discretion or
in good faith. Defendant[] Rutledge carried out his threat to retaliate, and
violated mandatory statutes, rules, regulations and practice not in good faith.
Defendant[] Rutledge violated federal and state law.

17
18

(Doc. No. 97 at 7-8.) The motion proceeds in this manner in response to the first, second,

19

third, fourth, fifth, eleventh affirmative defenses. (Id. at 7-10, 12.) As to the remaining

20

affirmative defenses, Plaintiff simply asserts that Defendants cannot prevail. (Id. at 10-

21

12.) For example, in response to the eighth affirmative defense of “waiver,” Plaintiff

22

asserts: “Plaintiff has not [w]aived any claims violating to damages [sic] and/or injury

23

caused by Defendant Rutledge.” (Id. at 11.)

24

II.

DISCUSSION

25

Plaintiff’s motion demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of

26

Answers and motions to strike affirmative defenses. The purpose of an Answer is simply

27

to give notice of the issues in dispute and to preserve defenses—not to litigate the merits

28

of the case or to assert detailed facts. United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer
2
14-CV-1923-WQH(WVG)

1

& Co., 959 F. Supp. 2d 81, 116 n.21 (D.D.C. 2013) (noting that “one function of an answer”

2

is to identify “points of disagreement”); Garrett v. Walker, No. CIV S-06-1904-RRB-EFB-

3

P, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55829, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2007) (“The purpose of the

4

answer is to simply admit or deny allegations of the complaint, not to test sufficiency of

5

evidence.”); Buford v. Vang, No. 00CV6496-REC-SMS-P, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24734,

6

at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2005) (“The function of the answer is to put the case at issue as to

7

all important matters alleged in the complaint that the defendant does not want to admit.”);

8

see also M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 858 F.3d 1189, 1199 (9th Cir.

9

2017).

10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court may strike “an insufficient

11

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous” matter from the

12

pleadings. The purpose of Rule 12(f) is “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that

13

must arise from litigating spurious issues by disposing of those issues prior to trial.”

14

Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal

15

quotations and citation omitted). Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because

16

striking is such a drastic remedy. Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 919,

17

923 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

18

In the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an

19

affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” Simmons v.

20

Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Wyshak v. City Nat’l

21

Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Fair notice generally requires that the defendant

22

state the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense.” Roe v. City of San Diego, 289

23

F.R.D. 604, 608 (S.D. Cal. 2013). “The defendant must articulate the affirmative defense

24

clearly enough that the plaintiff is not a victim of unfair surprise. It does not, however,

25

require a detailed statement of facts.” Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted;

26

emphasis added); see also Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir.

27

2015) (“[T]he ‘fair notice’ required by the pleading standards only require[s] describing

28

[an affirmative] defense in general terms.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
3
14-CV-1923-WQH(WVG)

1

Here, rather than argue that any affirmative defense is insufficient, redundant,

2

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, Plaintiff either argues the merits of various

3

defenses or provides a substantive response to other defenses. However, he fails to provide

4

any cognizable basis for the Court to strike any affirmative defense—for example, because

5

one is not a proper defense as a matter of law. The Court finds nothing improper about

6

Defendants’ affirmative defenses, which simply place Plaintiff on notice and fulfill the

7

purpose of such pleadings. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not satisfied the standard

8

for striking any affirmative defense under Rule 12(f), his motion is wholly without merit

9

and should be DENIED.

10
11
12

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion
to strike be DENIED.

13

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District

14

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(1988)

15

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

16

IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 1, 2019, any party to this action may

17

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document shall

18

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the

20

Court and served on all parties no later than October 10, 2019. The parties are advised

21

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those

22

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: September 9, 2019

25
26
27
28
4
14-CV-1923-WQH(WVG)