Oates v. Walgreen Company

Filing 21

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Strike Defenses. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/16/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOHN S. OATES,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 8:12-cv-908-T-33TGW

v.
WALGREEN COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

pursuant

to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. # 14),
which was filed on July 25, 2012.

For the reasons that

follow, the Court denies the Motion.
I.

Background
Plaintiff alleges that he became permanently disabled on

May 22, 2009, and that Defendant unlawfully denied disability
benefits pursuant to an ERISA Plan. Plaintiff accordingly
filed his two count Complaint against Defendant on April 25,
2012, alleging Recovery of Benefits (count one) and Failure to
Provide Full and Fair Review (count two). (Doc. # 1).
Defendant filed its Answer and Defenses (Doc. # 12) on June
11, 2012.

Defendant asserts five Defenses.

Plaintiff seeks

an order striking Defenses 1, 2, and 5, which follow:
First Defense
To the extent the Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, the Complaint

should be dismissed.
Second Defense
By the terms of the Plan under which Plaintiff
claims benefits and sues upon, Walgreens, as
administrator of the Plan, was delegated sole
authority to exercise its discretion to interpret
all terms of the Plan and to make eligibility
determinations for benefits under the Plan.
Walgreens exercised such discretion in concluding
that Plaintiff was no longer eligible for benefits
under
the
Plan.
Accordingly,
Walgreens’
determination should be given deference and
reviewed pursuant to the arbitrary and capricious
standard.
Fifth Defense
At all times, Walgreens complied with the terms of
ERISA and ERISA’s corresponding regulations.
(Doc. # 12 at 8-9).
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."

Defendant’s description

of its defenses satisfies Rule 8.
Affirmative defenses are also evaluated against the
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

-2-

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. 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.
-3-

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

defenses, such as accord and satisfaction, estoppel, laches,
res judicata, and waiver.
The Defenses at issue are not true affirmative defenses.
They do not admit the allegations of the Complaint but avoid
liability based upon some negating factor.

Rather, Defendant

raises in such Affirmative Defenses factual and legal issues
bearing

on

the

sufficiency

and

merits

of

Plaintiff’s

Complaint. This Court is not inclined to strike the Defenses.
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

-4-

Practice and Procedure § 1269 (2d ed. 1991), pp. 409-10).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks an order finding that
Defendant

arbitrarily

and

capriciously

denied

disability

benefits in a manner repugnant to the terms of a written
employee benefit plan and in contravention of ERISA law.

The

Defenses at issue attack the merits of the Complaint and aver
that Defendant complied with the letter of the law. The Court
determines that each of the questioned Defenses passes muster
under the standards noted above.
relevant

and

substantial

The Defenses put into issue

legal

and

factual

questions.

Furthermore, the Defenses relate squarely to the controversy,
do

not

confuse

the

issues,

prejudice to any party.

and

do

not

appear

to

cause

The Court thus denies the Motion.

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc.
# 14) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 16th
day of July 2012.

Copies to:

All Counsel of Record

-5-