Haynes v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Filing 18

ORDER: Plaintiff Tina Haynes' Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement 16 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/27/2015. (KBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TINA HAYNES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-3188-T-33MAP

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Tina Haynes’ Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Motion for
a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 16), filed on February 17,
2015. Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada filed a
response in opposition on February 25, 2015. (Doc. # 17).
Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated below, the
Court denies Haynes’ Motion.
I.

Background
Haynes

initiated

this

action

on

December

22,

2014,

against Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company, pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act. (Doc. # 1). Sun Life
filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on January 27, 2015.
(Doc. # 7). On February 17, 2015, Haynes filed the present
Motion. (Doc. # 16). Haynes requests that the Court enter an

order “striking, or in the alternative, compelling a more
definite statement as to Sun Life’s Answer, paragraph 8, and
its Fifth Affirmative Defense.” (Id.).
II.

Legal Standard — Motion to Strike
Responses to a pleading 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 and plain terms
its defenses to each claim asserted against it.” 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 to strike, such motions are disfavored due to their
“drastic nature.”

Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. M/Y Anastasia,

No. 95-cv-30498, 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 Corporation, No. 8:97-cv2866, 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.”

2

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., No. 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. Willmar 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
defenses, such as accord and satisfaction, estoppel, laches,
res judicata, and waiver.
In its Answer and Defenses to Complaint, Sun Life asserts
the following affirmative defense:
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff may have failed to pursue collateral
sources that may have been available to her. Sun
Life is entitled to a setoff to the extent said
3

funds would have been available to Plaintiff had
she pursued them.
(Doc. # 7 at 4). Furthermore, Sun Life provides the following
answer to Haynes’ contention that “Sun Life is the fiduciary
charged with making benefit determinations under the Plan,
including the determinations made on Plaintiff’s claim” (Doc.
# 1 ¶ 8):
Admitted that the policy confers full discretionary
authority
to
Sun
Life
to
determine
claims
thereunder and that Sun Life determined Plaintiff’s
claim, but denied that Sun Life generally makes
benefit determinations for “the Plan.”
(Doc. # 7 ¶ 8).
The Court acknowledges Haynes’ argument that Sun Life’s
Answer, paragraph 8, is “not responsive” and that Haynes is
“unable to understand” Sun Life’s statement in its Fifth
Affirmative Defense. (Doc. # 16 at 2). However, the Court
disagrees
determines

with
that

Haynes’
Sun

contentions.

Life’s

Answer

Instead,

and

Fifth

the

Court

Affirmative

defense pass muster under the standards set forth above –
particularly at this early juncture. Additionally, the Court
finds that the defense relates squarely to the controversy,
does not confuse the issues, and does not cause prejudice to
any party. Finally, the Court finds that Sun Life’s response

4

at paragraph 8 meets the meager pleading requirements of Rule
8.
As a result, the Court declines to strike Sun Life’s
Answer,

paragraph

8,

and

its

Fifth

Affirmative

Defense.

Furthermore, the Court finds Sun Life’s request for a more
definite statement similarly unwarranted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff

Tina

Haynes’

Motion

to

Strike

or,

Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. #
16) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
27th day of February, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

5