J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. MUNOZ

Filing 26

ENTRY ON MOTION TO STRIKE: For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 15 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/15/2011. (DWH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FIDEL A. MUNOZ,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 1:10-cv-1563-WTL-TAB

ENTRY ON MOTION TO STRIKE
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses
(Docket No. 15). This motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, now GRANTS
IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons, and to the extent, set
forth below
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the Court, on its own or on motion
from either party, “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Motions to strike are generally disfavored;
however, “where . . . motions to strike remove unnecessary clutter from the case, they serve to
expedite, not delay.” Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th
Cir. 1989). Because affirmative defenses are subject to the “General Rules of Pleading” under
Rule 8, affirmative defenses must be stated “in short and plain terms.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 8.
Affirmative defenses “will be stricken only when they are insufficient on the face of the
pleadings” and “[o]rdinarily, [affirmative] defenses will not be struck if they are sufficient as a
matter of law or if they present questions of law or fact.” Id.

II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J & J”) was granted the exclusive nationwide
commercial distribution rights to The Dream Match: Oscar De La Hoya v. Manny Pacquiao,
Welterweight Championship Fight Program (“the Program”). J & J entered into sublicensing
agreements with various business whereby J & J granted those businesses the right to exhibit the
Program to their patrons. Defendant Fidel A. Munoz, who owns and operates La Loma
Restaurant in Clarksville, Indiana did not receive a sublicense to exhibit the Program.
Nevertheless, the Defendant exhibited the Program for patrons at his establishment. J & J then
brought this suit alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. In April 2011, the
Defendant filed his Answer, which included nine affirmative defenses. J & J has now moved to
strike all nine affirmative defenses.
III. DISCUSSION
J & J’s first argument in favor of striking all of the affirmative defenses is that the
Defendant has failed to plead sufficient facts to make the affirmative defenses plausible. In
short, J & J asks this Court to apply the pleading standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 127 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) to affirmative
defenses. Neither the Seventh Circuit, nor any federal appellate court, has determined whether
to apply the Twombly/Iqbal standard to affirmative defenses. Although the Plaintiff cites rulings
from several different district courts that have applied Twombly to affirmative defenses, this
Court declines to follow those courts. Instead, the Court believes that Leon v. Jacobson
Transportation Co., Inc., No. 10 C 4939, 2010 WL 4810600 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2010), in which
the court refused to extend Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative defenses, is correct. While Leon is,

2

of course, not binding on this Court, the Court believes that it is well-reasoned and the Court
reaches the same result in this case.
This conclusion does not halt the Court’s inquiry, however, as J & J has also argued that
the Defendant’s affirmative defenses fail to pass muster under the Heller standard.
With respect to affirmative defense one (failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted), J & J’s motion is DENIED. Although this is not technically an affirmative defense,
this language is specifically listed in Form 30. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 explicitly
states that the Forms suffice under the Rules. Thus, the Court will not strike affirmative defense
number one.
J & J’s motion is also DENIED as to the Defendant’s second, third, fourth, seventh, and
eighth affirmative defenses, as they are all sufficient under Heller. Each of these affirmative
defenses set forth a short and plain statement of the respective defense and none are insufficient
on their face. Indeed, it appears that many of J & J’s arguments with respect to these affirmative
defenses would be more appropriately made in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
However, the Court agrees that affirmative defense five, which states that J & J’s “claims
are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of fraud or statute of limitation,” Answer
¶ 19, must be struck in part. Specifically, the portion of the defense raising the statute of frauds
is immaterial to this case. Thus, to the extent J & J moved to strike the statute of frauds as an
affirmative defense, its motion is GRANTED.
Similarly, the Court concludes that affirmative defense six, which alleges that J & J’s
claims “are barred, in whole or part, by the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, unclean
hands and/or laches,” id. ¶ 20, is insufficient under Heller. Accordingly, J & J’s motion is

3

GRANTED as to this affirmative defense; however, if the Defendant wishes to amend his
Answer to clarify this affirmative defense he may do so before JULY 28, 2011.
Finally, J & J’s motion is DENIED as to affirmative defense number nine, which, the
Court notes is not an affirmative defense at all. Instead, it is the Defendant’s attempt to reserve
his right to add additional defenses. This is unnecessary. If the Defendant wishes to add
additional defenses he may seek to amend in a Rule 15 motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 15) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
SO ORDERED: 07/15/2011

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification.

4