Creation Supply, Inc. v. Alpha Art Materials, Co., Ltd.

Filing 64

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable George M. Marovich on 2/13/2013: Plaintiff's motion 41 to strike affirmative defenses is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's first affirmative defense is stricken. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (ao,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

George M. Marovich

CASE NUMBER

12 C 5456

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

2/13/2013

Creation Supply, Inc. v. Alpha Art Materials Co., Ltd.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion [41] to strike affirmative defenses is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s first
affirmative defense is stricken.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
When defendant Alpha Art Materials Co. Ltd. (“Alpha Art”) filed its amended answer to plaintiff’s
complaint, it asserted three affirmative defenses: unripe claim, unclean hands and waiver. Plaintiff Creation
Supply, Inc. (“Creation Supply”) moves to strike defendant’s three affirmative defenses. Pursuant to Rule
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense
or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Motions to strike are generally disfavored.
With respect to all three of defendant’s affirmative defenses, plaintiff argues that defendant has not
pleaded sufficient facts to support the affirmative defenses. This Court disagrees. This Court has, on several
occasions, considered whether to extend the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative
defenses and has declined to do so. LaPorte v. Bureau Veritas North America Inc., Case No. 12 C 9543,
2013 WL 250657 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013); Leon v. Jacobson Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 10 C 4939,
2010 WL 4810600 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2010)). Accordingly, the Court declines to strike affirmative defenses
one through three for being insufficiently plead.
Next, plaintiff argues that defendant’s first affirmative defense–unripe claim–is not a true affirmative
defense. The Court agrees. Ripeness is not a doctrine that defeats a plaintiff’s claim on the merits. Instead,
“[r]ipeness is a justiciability doctrine designed, ‘to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature
adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements[.]’” National Park Hospitality v.
Department of the Int., 538 U.S. 803, 807 (2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-149
(1967)). Accordingly, the Court will strike defendant’s first affirmative defense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (“The
court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense . . .”).
With respect to the second and third affirmative defenses (unclean hands and waiver), plaintiff argues
that these affirmative defenses fail on the merits. Failure on the merits is not an appropriate reason for
Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
striking an affirmative defense. If plaintiff believes it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the
affirmative defenses, it can move for summary judgment (in compliance with the local rules) at the
appropriate time.

Page 2 of 2