Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Michael's Manor, L.L.C. et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and granting conditionally in part 8 Motion to Strike. 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 (krb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

INTERMOUNTAIN FAIR HOUSING
COUNCIL, INC.,

Case No. 4:12-cv-00645-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL’S MANOR, L.L.C. and
SHEILA ELAINE SHURTLIFF,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Dkt. 8). The motion at issue is
fully briefed. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion to strike.
ANALYSIS
Intermountain seeks to dismiss all of Michael Manor’s affirmative defenses on the
grounds that they fail to contain the required specificity under the Twombly and Iqbal
pleading standard. Currently, there is a question in the federal district courts determining
whether Twombly and Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses. The parties and the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

were unable to find any Ninth Circuit authority on the issue, though many District Courts
within the Ninth Circuit have addressed the issue. See PageMelding, Inc. v. ESPN, INC.,
2012 WL 3877686 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 6, 2012). Though the current case law may be
shifting, the Court will continue to follow the standards that have been applied in the
Ninth Circuit.
The Court need not decide here whether Twombly and Iqbal apply to Michael
Manor’s affirmative defenses because they clearly fail to satisfy the lesser standard set
prior to these cases. Under the Ninth Circuit notice 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. North Star Charter School, Inc., 2011 WL 3205280 (D. Idaho 2011).
The full text of Michael Manor’s affirmative defenses is contained in the Answer.
Answer ¶ 7-8, Dkt 6. It is apparent that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Six,
Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Affirmative Defenses stated by Michael’s Manor contain no
detail, and leave Intermountain to assume the basis for each defense. Intermountain is
entitled to an explanation of these defenses that include specific allegations. The Court
will give Michael’s Manor the opportunity to redraft the affirmative defenses. Therefore,
The Court will conditionally grant Intermountain's Motion to Strike, giving Michael’s

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Manor 21 days to amend the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Six, Seventh, Ninth, and
Tenth Affirmative Defenses to provide the requisite detail. If no amendment is made, the
Court will strike the affirmative defenses stated in the answer.
Michael Manor’s Eighth Affirmative Defense—alleging that Intermountain’s
claim fails to state a claim for relief “that would entitle Plaintiff to either punitive
damages or equitable relief”—is not a proper affirmative defense. Answer ¶ 8, Dkt. 6.
Affirmative defenses are meant to plead matters that are not within the scope of the
plaintiff’s prima facie case. Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit Plan, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167,
1174 (N. D. Cal. 2010). An allegation for failure to states a claim is not an affirmative
defense because it shows a defect in the plaintiff’s prima facie case. See id. Accordingly,
the Court will strike Michael Manor’s Eighth Affirmative Defense because it is merely an
assertion that Intermountain failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 8)
is GRANTED in part and GRANTED CONDITIONALLY in part. It is granted to the
extent it seeks to strike Michael Manor’s Eighth Affirmative Defense alleging that
Intermountain failed to state a claim. It is granted conditionally at to the First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth 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.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

DATED: July 29, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4