Stearns Bank National Association v. Shiraz Investments, LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff Stearns Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Strike First Affirmative Defense. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/6/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STEARNS BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 8:12-cv-313-T-33TGW

v.
SHIRAZ INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
SHIRAZ ORIENTAL RUG GALLERY, INC.,
ET AL.,
Counterclaimants,
v.
STEARNS BANK, N.A.,
Counterclaim Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Stearns

Bank,

N.A.’s

Defense

(Doc.

#

17),

Motion

to

Strike

filed

on

April

First
19,

Affirmative

2012.

Shiraz

Investments, LLC, Alaedin & Majdi Investments, Inc., Shiraz
Oriental

Rug

Falasiri

(the

Gallery,
“Shiraz

Inc.,

Alaedin

Defendants”)

Falasiri,
filed

a

and

Majdi

Response

in

Opposition to the Motion to Strike (Doc. # 19) on May 2, 2012.
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion to
Strike.

I.

Background
Plaintiff Stearns Bank filed a Complaint for Commercial

Foreclosure

against

the

Shiraz

Defendants,

Defendants, on February 14, 2012.
Defendants

filed

their

Answer,

among

(Doc. # 1).

Affirmative

Counterclaim (Doc. # 12) on March 19, 2012.

other

The Shiraz

Defenses,

and

In Affirmative

Defense one, the Shiraz Defendants assert, “Stearns Bank,
N.A., which has locations in the State of Florida, lacks the
diversity of citizenship required for this Court to have
jurisdiction over this action.” (Doc. # 12 at 13).
Stearns Bank moves to strike this Affirmative Defense.
II.

Legal Standard
Affirmative defenses are subject to the general pleading

requirements

of

Rule

8.

Rule

8(b)(1)(A),

Fed.R.Civ.P.,

requires that a party "state in short plain terms its defenses
to each claim asserted against it."
also

evaluated

against

the

Affirmative defenses are

touchstone

of

Rule

12(f),

Fed.R.Civ.P., which states, "The court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter."

Although the Court has

broad discretion in ruling on a motion to strike, such motions
are disfavored due to their “drastic nature.”

Royal Ins. Co.

of Am. v. M/Y Anastasia, No. 95-cv-60498/RV, 1997 U.S. Dist.
-2-

LEXIS 15595, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 1997).

Further, as

stated in Florida Software Systems v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare
Corp., No. 8:97-cv-2866-T-17B, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15294, at
*4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 1999), "An affirmative defense will be
held insufficient as a matter of law only if it appears that
the Defendant cannot succeed under any set of facts which it
could prove."
In addition, courts may strike a defense if it has “no
possible relation to the controversy, may confuse the issues,
or may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Ayers v.
Consol. Constr. Servs. of SW Fla., Inc., 2:07-cv-123, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86596, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2007). "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." Fla. Software Sys., 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 15294, at *4.
III. Analysis
A true affirmative defense is “one that admits to the
complaint, but avoids liability, wholly, or partly, by new
allegations

of

excuse,

justification

or

other

negating

matters.” Bluewater Trading, LLC v. Willimar USA, Inc., No.
07-cv-61284, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108191, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 9, 2008).

Rule 8(c)(1) includes a list of affirmative
-3-

defenses, such as accord and satisfaction, estoppel, laches,
res judicata, and waiver.
The Defense in question is not a true affirmative defense
in that it does not admit the allegations of the Complaint but
avoid liability based upon some negating factor. Rather, such
Defense challenges the Court’s jurisdiction.

Nevertheless,

this

Defense.

Court

is

not

inclined

to

strike

the

As

explained in Ohio National Life Assurance Corp. v. Langkau,
No. 3:06-cv-290, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60062, at *6-7 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 15, 2006):
In attempting to controvert an allegation in the
complaint, the defendant occasionally may label his
negative averment as an affirmative defense rather
than as a specific denial.
But as long as the
pleading clearly indicates the allegations in the
complaint that are intended to be placed in issue,
the improper designation should not prejudice the
pleader.
If plaintiff has been given “plain
notice” of the matters to be litigated which is all
the federal pleading rules require, he should be
put to this proof irrespective of any error by
defendant regarding terminology.
The federal
courts have accepted the notion of treating a
specific
denial
that
has
been
improperly
denominated as an affirmative defense as though it
was correctly labeled.
Id. (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1269 (2d ed. 1991), pp. 409-10).
The Court determines that the questioned Defense passes
muster under the standards noted above. The Defense puts into

-4-

issue relevant and substantial legal and factual questions.
Furthermore, the Defense relates squarely to the controversy,
does not confuse the issues, and does not appear to cause
prejudice to any party.
Strike.

The Court thus denies the Motion to

In the event that the Shiraz Defendants challenge

this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the Shiraz Defendants
should file a motion and supporting memorandum of law seeking
the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Stearns Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Strike First
Affirmative Defense (Doc. # 17) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 6th
day of July 2012.

Copies to:

All Counsel of Record

-5-