New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. City of St. Louis

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defense Asserting that RLUIPA is Unconstitutional (Doc. 43) and Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses 2, 3, and 9 (Doc. 44) are DENIED.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/9/15. (LGK)

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

NEW LIFE EVANGELISTIC
CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-00395-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. 's
Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defense Asserting that RLUIPA is
Unconstitutional (Doc. 43) and Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses 2, 3,
and 9 (Doc. 44 ). Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant the City of Saint Louis,
Missouri's ("the City") affirmative defenses 2, 3, 9, 18 and 19 pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f) as legally insufficient (Docs. 43-1, 44). The City's affirmative
defenses 2, 3, 9, 18 and 19 are as follows:
2. Plaintiff fails to state any claim for relief because there 1s no justiciable
controversy in that its permit has not been revoked.
3. Plaintiffs claims are not ripe for adjudication because Plaintiffs permit has not
been revoked.
9. Plaintiffs equitable claims must fail because they possess an adequate remedy
at law through the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act.

18. Alternatively, Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause and Spending Clause
authority by enacting RLUIPA.
19. Alternatively, RLUIPA violates the
Amendment, and the Establishment Clause.

Tenth Amendment,

Fourteenth

(Doc. 39 at 13-14).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a
pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter." Although courts enjoy broad discretion in determining whether to strike a party's
pleadings, motions to strike are "viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted."
Speraneo v. Zeus Technology, Inc., 2012 WL 2117872, at * 1 (E.D. Mo. June 11, 2012)
(internal quotations omitted). The Court will not exercise its discretion under the rule to
strike a pleading unless the matters sought to be omitted have no possible relationship to
the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party. See Shirrell v. St.
Francis Medical Center, 2013 WL 3457010, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 9, 2013) (and cases
cited therein). Relevant to Plaintiffs specific assertions, the Eighth Circuit directs the
Court not to strike a defense as "legally insufficient" if the defense is either "sufficient as
a matter of law or if it fairly presents a question of law or fact which the court ought to
hear." Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th Cir. 1977) (internal quotations
omitted).
The Court finds that the affirmative defenses have a significant relationship to the
controversy and present questions of law and fact the Court should consider. Plaintiff has
spent a great deal of time arguing the merits of the affirmative defenses, not their legal

2

sufficiency. Further, Plaintiff has not established that the inclusion of the affirmative
defenses would prejudice or confuse the issues in any way.
· Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant's
Affirmative Defense Asserting that RLUIPA is Unconstitutional (Doc. 43) and Motion to
Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses 2, 3, and 9 (Doc. 44) are DENIED.
Dated this 9th day of July, 2015.

3