Mandujano v. Freight Handlers, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Various Affirmative Defenses 18 is granted in part. The Court hereby strikes the portion of Defendant's Seventh Affirmative Defense that relates to laches and the entirety of its Eighth, Tenth, and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses from Defendant's Answer 9 . Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 6/19/2017. (LN)

Case 8:17-cv-00479-JSM-TBM Document 20 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JOSE MANDUJANO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-479-T-30TBM

FREIGHT HANDLERS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Various
Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 18) and Defendant’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 19). Upon
review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion should be granted in part.
Plaintiff Jose Mandujano alleges that Defendant Freight Handlers, Inc. violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay him overtime wages. In response to
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), Defendant filed its Answer (Doc. 9) asserting thirteen
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion, seeking to strike nine
of those defenses and Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees.
DISCUSSION
An affirmative defense is a defense that “requires judgment for the defendant even
if the plaintiff can prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.” Wright v. Southland
Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 1303 (11th Cir.1999). A defendant who pleads affirmative defenses

Case 8:17-cv-00479-JSM-TBM Document 20 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 110

in its answer must state each defense “in short and plain terms.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1).
“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 and will usually be denied unless it is clear the [affirmative defense]
sought to be stricken is insufficient as a matter of law” or “has no possible relation to the
controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Nobles v. Convergent
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-1745-T-30MAP, 2015 WL 5098877, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2015) (internal citations omitted).
A defense that simply points out a defect or lack of evidence in a plaintiff's case is
not an affirmative defense. See In re Rawson Food Service, Inc., 846 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th
Cir. 1988). When a specific denial is labeled as an affirmative defense, a court will
generally treat the defense as a denial instead of striking it. Traderplanet.com, LLC v.
Found. for the Study of Cycles, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-3120-T-30TBM, 2014 WL 12620823,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2014) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike nine of Defendant’s affirmative defenses:
Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense (Failure to State a Claim), Fourth Affirmative
Defense (Good Faith), Fifth Affirmative Defense (Good Faith Reliance on Legal
Authority), Seventh Affirmative Defense (Laches and/or Unclean Hands), Eighth
Affirmative Defense (Estoppel), Ninth Affirmative Defense (Setoff), Tenth Affirmative
Defense (Accord and Satisfaction), Eleventh Affirmative Defense (Preliminary and
Postliminary Activities), and Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mitigate

2

Case 8:17-cv-00479-JSM-TBM Document 20 Filed 06/19/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 111

Damages). Defendant agrees to strike the Tenth and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses, as
well as the laches portion of the Seventh Affirmative Defense.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth,
and Eleventh Affirmative Defenses because they fail to comply with Rule 8’s pleading
standard. The Court disagrees. The First Affirmative Defense is a specific denial that
Defendant mislabelled as an affirmative defense, so the Court will treat this as a denial
rather than striking it. The Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Defenses are written
in “short and plain terms” and provide Plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defenses
Defendant plans to rely on. In addition, the facts related to these defenses “can be easily
ferreted out during discovery.” Traderplanet.com, 2014 WL 12620823, at *2. The Court
will not strike these defenses because they may be relevant to Plaintiff’s FLSA claim and
will not unduly prejudice Plaintiff.
Plaintiff next argues that the Court should strike the Eighth Affirmative Defense
because it is not a valid defense to an FLSA claim. The Eighth Affirmative Defense states
that “Plaintiff is estopped from seeking payment for unpaid wages to the extent he failed
to raise contemporaneous objections to his wages and any official records of hours worked
versus what he purports to actually have worked.” The FLSA does not require a plaintiff
to provide notice of an alleged wage violation prior to bringing suit. In addition, “federal
courts have [generally] rejected equitable estoppel as an affirmative defense to an FLSA
action, even where an employee is required to, but fails to, record overtime hours worked.”
Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2005)
(internal citations omitted); accord Hansen v. ABC Liquors, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-966-J-

3

Case 8:17-cv-00479-JSM-TBM Document 20 Filed 06/19/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 112

34MCR, 2009 WL 3790447, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2009) (internal citations omitted).
Although there is some case law to suggest that the Court can allow an estoppel defense
under very limited circumstances, Defendant does not allege facts sufficient for the Court
to infer that estoppel is applicable in this case. Compare Doc. 9 with Brumbelow v. Quality
Mills, Inc., 462 F.2d 1324, 1327 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that an employee who
purposefully understated her hours so that her company would not fire her for failing to
meet its minimum production norms was estopped from recovering compensation for the
extra hours she worked). Thus, the Court will strike this defense. If Defendant later
uncovers evidence to warrant the application of an estoppel defense, it may move to amend
its pleading at that time.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike Defendant’s request for
attorney’s fees because the FLSA does not provide fees to prevailing defendants. While
that is true, a defendant may still recover its fees in an FLSA case when the plaintiff acted
in bad faith. Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d 1541, 1544 (11th Cir. 1985).
Consequently, courts in this district routinely deny motions to strike these prayers for relief.
See, e.g., Aguilar v. Abc Supply Co., No. 2:10-CV-141FTM36SPC, 2010 WL 2243753, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2010); Hansen, 2009 WL 3790447, at *4.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Various Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 18) is
granted in part.

4

Case 8:17-cv-00479-JSM-TBM Document 20 Filed 06/19/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 113

2.

The Court hereby strikes the portion of Defendant’s Seventh Affirmative
Defense that relates to laches and the entirety of its Eighth, Tenth, and
Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses from Defendant’s Answer (Doc. 9).

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 19th, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

5