Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Glenbrook Apartments et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Intermountain's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 14 ) is GRANTED CONDITIONALLY as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and seventeenth affirmative defenses. More detailed allegations for these affirmative defenses must be filed within 21 days from the entry of this decision or the affirmative defenses will be stricken. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

INTERMOUNTAIN FAIR HOUSING
COUNCIL, INC.,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00055-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

GLENBROOK APARTMENTS,
LAURENCE VOSTI, and ROBERT
HENN,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt.14). The motion is fully briefed. For the
reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion
ANALYSIS
In April 2013, Plaintiff Intermountain Fair Housing Council sued Glenbrook
Apartments and its owners for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act. See Am.
Verified Comp., Dkt. 5. Intermountain also alleges that defendants were negligent in
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

their treatment of various unidentified individuals. When defendants answered the
complaint, they included eighteen affirmative defenses. Intermountain contends that ten
of these defenses (the third through the eleventh, plus the seventeenth) should be stricken
because they do not meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. See generally Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
The Court will strike these affirmative defenses, but it does not need to decide
whether Twombly and Iqbal apply. Rather, as the Court has recently held, if affirmative
defenses contain no detail whatever, they fail to satisfy even the lesser pleading standard
set prior to Twombly and Iqbal. See Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Michael’s
Manor, L.L.C., Case No. 4:12-cv-645-BLW, 2013 WL 3944259 (D. Idaho July 29, 2013)
(striking affirmative defenses nearly identical to those pled here). Under this lesser
standard, an affirmative defense is insufficiently pled where it fails to provide the
plaintiff with “fair notice of the defense.” Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827
(9th Cir. 1979). “The key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative
defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” Id. The “fair notice”
pleading requirement is met if the defendant “sufficiently articulated the defense so that
the plaintiff was not a victim of unfair surprise.” Smith v. N. Star Charter Sch., Inc., Case
No. 1-10-cv-618-WBS, 2011 WL 3205280, at *3 (D. Idaho July 26, 2011).
The affirmative defenses alleged here do not meet this pleading standard. The
ninth affirmative defense, for example, alleges only that “[t]he Plaintiff’s claims are
barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.” Answer, Dkt. 12, at 4. The

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

remaining, challenged affirmative defenses are similarly pleaded. Intermountain is
entitled to an explanation of these defenses. The Court will therefore grant the motion to
strike, though it will give defendants an opportunity to amend. If no amendment is made,
the defense will be stricken.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Intermountain’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
(Dkt. 14) is GRANTED CONDITIONALLY as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and seventeenth affirmative defenses. More detailed
allegations for these affirmative defenses must be filed within 21 days from the entry of
this decision or the affirmative defenses will be stricken.

DATED: October 31, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3