United States of America et al v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying without prejudice 115 Motion to strike. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 5/22/2012. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ, Relator,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-

Case No. 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31DAB

HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER, d/b/a Halifax Health, a/k/a
Halifax Community Health System, a/k/a
Halifax Medical Center and HALIFAX
STAFFING, INC.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Strike (Doc. 115)
filed by the Government and the response (Doc. 117) filed by the Defendants. The Government
seeks to strike a number of affirmative defenses raised by the Defendants in their answer (Doc.
112). Upon review of those defenses, the Court agrees that they are unlikely to survive to trial, in
that they are entirely vague and appear unlikely to be supported by facts not already known to the
Defendants. Nonetheless, at this stage, the motion will be denied.
In pertinent part, Rule 12 provides that “The court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(f). However, motions to strike are generally disfavored. Augustus v. Board of Public
Instruction of Escambia County, Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962). A “court will not
exercise its discretion under [Rule 12(f)] to strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be omitted

has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a
party.” Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 574, 576 (M.D.Fla.1995). Indeed, “An
affirmative defense will only be stricken ... if the defense is ‘insufficient as a matter of law.’”
Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
(quotations omitted). While there are no “hard and fast rules for determining what constitutes an
insufficient defense,” Reyher, 881 F.Supp. at 576 (M.D.Fla.1995), an affirmative defense is
generally insufficient as a matter of law only if: (1) on the face of the pleadings, it is patently
frivolous, or (2) it is clearly invalid as a matter of law. Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211
F.R.D. at 683 (M.D.Fla.2002). Furthermore, “To the extent that a defense puts into issue relevant
and substantial legal and factual questions, it is ‘sufficient’ and may survive a motion to strike,
particularly when there is no showing of prejudice to the movant.” Reyher, 881 F.Supp. at 576
(M.D.Fla.1995). In evaluating a motion to strike, the Court must treat all well pleaded facts as
admitted and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings. Id.
The affirmative defenses, though short on details, are not patently frivolous or clearly
invalid as a matter of law, and the Government has not shown that it will likely suffer prejudice if
they remain a part of this case. Moreover, the Court sees no efficiency gain to be had by
addressing this issue now. To the extent that discovery reveals that these defenses lack support,
they should be withdrawn by the Defendants or attacked via a motion for summary judgment.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Strike (Doc. 115) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on May 22, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-3-