NORIEGA v. Scottsdale Insurance Company

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 4/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:21-cv-20578-JLK
MIDIALA NORIEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”) (DE 10) on March 16, 2021. Defendant filed its Response
(DE 15) on March 24, 2021. Plaintiff’s Reply was due March 31, 2021; none was filed.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Affirmative defenses are subject to the general pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a party “state in short and plain terms its
defenses to each claim asserted against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). Rule 8 does not require a
defendant to set forth detailed factual allegations, but a defendant must give the plaintiff “fair
notice” of the nature of the defense and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 553 (2007).
Moreover, “any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter” may be stricken from any pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, motions
to strike are disfavored by the courts, and an affirmative defense will be stricken only if it is

insufficient as a matter of law. See Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 419 F. Supp.
992, 1000 (M.D. Fla. 1976); Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345,
1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002). “A defense is insufficient as a matter of law if, on the face of the pleadings,
it is patently frivolous, or if it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Anchor Hocking, 419 F. Supp.
at 1000. An affirmative defense admits to the allegations of the complaint, but avoids liability in
whole or in part by introducing new allegations of excuse, justification, or other negating matters.
Royal Palm Sav. Ass’n v. Pine Trace Corp., 715 F. Supp. 1416, 1420 (M.D. Fla. 1989).
II.

DISCUSSION

By way of background, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging a breach of contract claim and
requesting declaratory relief. See Compl., DE 1-1. Defendant removed the case to this Court on
February 11, 2021. See Not. of Removal, DE 1. Defendant filed an Answer on February 18, 2021.
Defendant’s Answer includes eight (8) affirmative defenses. See Answer, DE 3.
The instant Motion seeks to strike all eight of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses. See
Mot. Plaintiff states the affirmative defenses are “unequivocally immaterial and impertinent
because they contain no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief pleaded, and do
not pertain nor are they necessary to the issues in question in the case.” Mot. at ¶ 8. The Motion
provides additional, specific arguments for striking each of the eight affirmative defenses. See
Mot. at ¶¶ 9–16.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to confer with Defendant prior to filing the Motion
in violation of Local Rules. See Resp. at 3–4. Defendant further argues each affirmative defense
includes a factual basis and are enough to place Plaintiff on notice. See Resp. at 4.

Upon consideration of the Motion, Response, the pleadings, and the applicable standard of
law, the Court finds the Motion should be denied. Insofar as Plaintiff’s Motion argues that the
affirmative defenses lack factual support, the Motion is premature until completion of discovery.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DE 10) be, and the same is, hereby
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s original Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DE 5), and the same is,
hereby DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice
Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida this 15th day of April, 2021.
________________________________
JAMES LAWRENCE KING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

All counsel of record