Person v. Heartland of Galesburg IL, LLC d/b/a Heartland Health Care Center - Galesburg

Filing 23

ORDER denying 19 the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 12/10/2014. (KZ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 10 December, 2014 09:24:14 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
DANELLE PERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01297-SLD-JEH

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
Order
Now before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative
Defenses (Doc. 19). The Defendant filed its Response (Doc. 22), and for the
reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
I
On July 25, 2014, the Defendant 1 removed this case to federal court from
the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Knox County, Illinois. On October 2, 2014, a Rule 16
Scheduling Conference was held and the Court set discovery to close on May 25,
2015 and dispositive motions to be filed by June 25, 2015. The Plaintiff filed his
Amended Complaint on October 17, 2014, the Defendant filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2014, and then the Plaintiff filed his
Motion to Strike on November 17, 2014. In its Answer and Affirmative Defenses,
the Defendant set forth eight Affirmative Defenses. The Plaintiff seeks to strike
all eight Affirmative Defenses on the basis that the Twombly-Iqbal standard
The Plaintiff originally named Heartland of Galesburg IL, LLC d/b/a Heartland Health Care Center –
Galesburg as defendant. On August 1, 2014, that Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Improper Party &
Substitute Proper Party, requesting its dismissal and the substitution of Heartland Employment Services,
LLC in this case. That Motion was rendered moot upon the Plaintiff filing his Amended Complaint
naming Heartland Employment Services, LLC.

1

1

should apply to affirmative defenses and under that standard, here, the defenses
fail because there has been no showing of plausibility.
II
Motions to strike affirmative defenses are not favored. Williams v Jader Fuel
Company, 944 F2d 1388, 1400 (7th Cir 1991) (stating that motions to strike are not
favored and “will not be granted unless is appears to a certainty that plaintiffs
would succeed despite any state of facts which could be proved in support of the
defense” and “are inferable from the pleadings”) (collecting cases); Heller
Financial, Inc. v Midwhey Powder Company, 883 F2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir 1989)
(explaining that motions to strike are disfavored because they potentially serve
only to delay). Moreover, courts do not generally grant motions to strike unless
the defect in the pleading causes prejudice to the party bringing the motion.
Hofmann v Sumner, 478 F Supp 2d 1024, 1028 (ND Ill 2007); Rivertree Landing LLC
v Murphy, 246 FRD 667, 667 (ND Ill 2007).
Here, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike less than two months after
discovery commenced and just five days after the Defendant filed its Answer
and Affirmative Defenses.

More than five months remain before discovery

closes in this case. The case’s progression through discovery may make the
dispute over the Affirmative Defenses entirely moot. Moreover, as for this case’s
progression, the Plaintiff does not identify how it is prejudiced by the inclusion
of the Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses at this stage. Without any indication of
prejudice to the Plaintiff and no certainty that the Plaintiff will succeed despite
any state of facts which can be proved in support of the Defendant’s Affirmative
Defenses and are inferable from the pleadings, the Plaintiff is not entitled to his
requested relief.

2

III
For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative
Defenses (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
Entered on December 10, 2014.

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3