Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company v. Central State Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike [Doc. #18] is granted as to affirmative defense 10 and denied as to affirmative defenses 6, 8, and 9.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/10/17. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
REPUBLIC-VANGUARD INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CENTRAL STATE HOLDINGS, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-CV-1616 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Republic-Vanguard
Insurance Company, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to strike
affirmative defenses asserted by defendant Central State Holdings, LLC. The issues
are fully briefed.
I. Background
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a
declaration of it rights and obligations under a commercial liability policy of
insurance that it issued to defendant Enersource Electrical Contractors, LLC.1

In

October 2016, Enersource was found liable for an electrical fire that damaged
property belonging to defendant Central State. Plaintiff contends that it is not
responsible for indemnifying or defending Enersource.
Central State filed an answer that included ten affirmative defenses and a
counterclaim for declaratory relief.

Plaintiff moves to strike Central State’s

affirmative defenses 6, 8, 9, and 10.

1

On April 28, 2017, default was entered against Enersource. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).

1

II. Legal Standard
Courts may strike “from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “A matter is
immaterial or impertinent when not relevant to the resolution of the issue at hand.”
McLafferty v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ind., No. 14-564 DSD/SER, 2014 WL 2009086, at
*3 (D. Minn. May 16, 2014) (citation omitted). Under Rule 12(f), a court has
discretion to strike affirmative defenses. See Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d
221, 229 (8th Cir. 1977). But while the district court enjoys broad discretion in
determining whether to strike a party’s pleadings, such an action is an extreme and
disfavored measure. BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908, 917 (8th
Cir. 2007); Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000).
“Parties filing a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) bear the burden
of providing the Court any reason why this language is immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Charter Commc’ns, No. 4:15-CV-1593
(RLW), 2016 WL 1625461, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 21, 2016) (quoting Simms v. Chase
Student Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 4:08-CV-1480 (ERW), 2009 WL 943552, at *2
(E.D. Mo. Apr. 6, 2009)). “Motions to strike affirmative defenses should not be
granted unless, as a matter of law, the defense cannot succeed under any
circumstances.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, “[a] motion
to strike should not succeed unless the party shows that it is prejudiced by the
inclusion of a defense or that a defense’s inclusion confuses the issues.” Fidelity
Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., LLC, No. 4:10-CV-1890 (CEJ), 2011 WL
845928, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2011). “The prejudice requirement is satisfied if
striking the defense would, for example, prevent a party from engaging in

2

burdensome discovery, or otherwise expending time and resources litigating
irrelevant issues that will not affect the case’s outcome.” Id. (quotation marks and
citations omitted).
III. Discussion
In affirmative defense 6, Central State asserts that Counts I and II of the
complaint are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiff argues that this
affirmative defense should be stricken because defendant has not adequately
pleaded all of the elements of estoppel. The Eighth Circuit has held that affirmative
defenses “need not be articulated with any rigorous degree of specificity” and are
“sufficiently raised for purposes of Rule 8 by its bare assertion.” Zotos v. Lindbergh
Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). And, a motion to strike should be denied if “the defense is
sufficient as a matter of law or if it fairly presents a question of law or fact which
the court ought to hear.” Bartoe v. Mo. Barge Line Co., No. 1:07-CV-165 (RWS),
2009 WL 1118816, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2009). Consequently the Court will not
strike affirmative defense 6.
Affirmative defense 8 states that defendant Central State is entitled to relief
under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 375.420. Affirmative defense 9 alleges that plaintiff is
obligated to pay defendant Central State because of a later-issued insurance policy.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should strike both defenses because they merely
reiterate counterclaims. [Doc. #18 at 4]. Under Rule 12(f) “redundant refers to a
statement of facts that are wholly foreign to the issue or that are needlessly
repetitive of immaterial allegations.” Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Fiala, 870 F. Supp.
962, 977 (E.D. Mo. 1994). Because plaintiff has failed to show that the allegations

3

of the affirmative defenses do not relate to the issue involved in this case, the
Court will not strike them. See United States v. Neb. Beef, Ltd., No. 8:15-CV-370,
2016 WL 6088267, at *5 (D. Neb. May 6, 2016) (denying a motion to strike that
argued affirmative defenses were duplicative of other defenses, claims, or
counterclaims).
Affirmative defense 10 states that defendant Central State “reserves the
right to amend these affirmative defenses and/or assert additional affirmative
defenses as discovery and circumstances dictate.” Plaintiff is correct that a party
cannot reserve the right to amend an answer through an affirmative defense. See
Construction Industry Laborers, Pension Fund v. Wellington Concrete, LLC, No.
4:15-CV-804 (CAS), 2016 WL 1275605, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2016). Any
amendments to pleadings, including affirmative defenses, must be conducted in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Id. Defendant Central State
concedes this point. Accordingly, affirmative defense 10 is stricken.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike [Doc. #18] is
granted as to affirmative defense 10 and denied as to affirmative defenses 6, 8,
and 9.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of May, 2017.

4