BATH & BODY WORKS BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC. v. TRI-COASTAL DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Filing
33
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 12/3/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 2:12-00957 (WJM)
BATH & BODY WORKS BRAND
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
TRI-COASTAL DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Bath and Body Works Brand
Management, Inc. (“Bath and Body”) and Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff TriCoastal Design Group, Inc. (“Tri-Coastal”) both allege that the other has infringed
intellectual property rights in bottles for shower gels and liquid soaps. After Bath
and Body moved to dismiss counterclaim counts I-VI, which sound in trademark
infringement, Tri-Coastal amended its pleading, and Bath & Body withdrew its
motion. Accordingly, the Court will DENY the motion to dismiss as moot.
Bath and Body also asks the Court to strike, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f), approximately 60 of Tri-Coastal’s 84 affirmative defenses,
either because they are not properly pled, because they do not exist, or because
they confuse the issues. The Court will GRANT this motion part and DENY it in
part. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter.” As motions to strike are “often sought by the movant simply
as a dilatory tactic,” they are extremely disfavored. F.T.C. v. Hope Now
Modifications, LLC, 2011 WL 883202, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2011) (internal
quotation and citation omitted). “[E]ven where the challenged material is
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, a motion to strike should not be
granted unless the presence of the surplusage will prejudice the adverse party.” Id.
1
(quoting Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Aruba Networks, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 353, 359 (D.
Del. 2009)).
As an initial matter, the Court disagrees with Bath and Body’s argument that
affirmative defenses are subject to plausibility pleading. Hope Now, 2011 WL
883202 at **3-4 (concluding Twombly and Iqbal do not apply to affirmative
defenses under Rule 8(c)). Because Bath & Body has not demonstrated that it will
be prejudiced by Tri-Coastal’s affirmative defenses of fraud (Affirmative Defenses
¶¶ 3, 82), laches (Affirmative Defenses ¶¶ 4, 24, 39, 55, 74), acquiescence
(Affirmative Defenses ¶¶ 15, 25, 40, 56, 75), and estoppel (Affirmative Defenses
¶¶ 2, 10, 26, 41, 57, 71), the Court chooses not to strike those defenses. See id. at
*4 (refusing to “exercise its discretion to strike . . . defenses ‘in the absence of a
showing of prejudice to the moving party’”) (internal citation omitted). The same
goes for Affirmative Defenses ¶¶ 17-19, 22-23, 27-38, 42-54, 58, 60-61, and 6370. Bath and Body argues that these defenses “accomplish nothing more than to
recapitulate Tri-Coastal’s denials of Bath and Body Works’ allegations, rendering
them redundant and irrelevant,” Pl.’s Br. 11, ECF No. 13-1, but it does not argue
prejudice. Finally, the Court will exercise its discretion to strike Affirmative
Defenses ¶ 20 (no showing of inducement to purchase) and ¶ 83 (violation of
public policy). These defenses prejudice Bath and Body because they are not
recognized affirmative defenses and because they appear to have no bearing on any
issue at play in this case.
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the motion to strike in part and DENY
it in part. It will STRIKE only Affirmative Defenses ¶ 20 and ¶ 83. An
appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: December 3, 2012
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?