INNOVATIVE SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC. v. NETO
Filing
17
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/1/13. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
INNOVATIVE SPORTS,
MANAGEMENT, INC. t/a
INTEGRATED SPORTS MEDIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONIO M. NETO, Individually and
as officers, directors, shareholders,
and/or principals of KIMBARA,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-1497 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses by
Plaintiff, Innovative Sports Management, Inc. t/a Integrated Sports Media (“Plaintiff”). For the
reasons stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was granted exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights to the cable
televised broadcast of “International Match: Costa Rica v. Argentina,” scheduled for March 29,
2011 (the “Broadcast”). Pursuant to the contract granting Plaintiff distribution rights to the
Broadcast, Plaintiff entered into sub-licensing agreements with various commercial
establishments for public exhibition of the Broadcast. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
unlawfully intercepted and exhibited the Broadcast at Kimbara, their restaurant. Plaintiff filed a
complaint against Defendants in this Court on March 12, 2013 asserting three claims: 1)
violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; 2) violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; and 3) conversion.
On July 8, 2013, Defendants filed an Answer which included thirty-four (34) affirmative
defenses. Plaintiff now moves to strike all 34 of Defendants’ affirmative defenses and requests
that attorney’s fees be awarded as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to strike affirmative defenses are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), which gives
the Court the discretion to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A defendant is required to plead available
affirmative defenses in his answer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Parties must assert affirmative
defenses “early in litigation, so they may be ruled upon, prejudice may be avoided, and judicial
resources may be conserved.” Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2002).
A motion to strike a defense shall not be granted “unless the insufficiency of the defense
is clearly apparent.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 789 F.2d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 1986). The
Court is restrained from evaluating the merits of a defense where the factual background of a
case is largely undeveloped. Id. Affirmative defenses will survive a motion to strike if, by
providing sufficient facts, plaintiff is given fair notice of the nature of the defenses being asserted
and a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate why the defenses should not succeed. Robinson,
313 F.3d at 136. Specifically, defenses that are “nothing more than bare bones conclusory
allegations can be stricken.” F.D.I.C. v. Modular Homes, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 117, 120-21 (D.N.J.
1994).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Striking Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiff makes three arguments in support of its motion to strike: (1) Defendants’
affirmative defenses are each legally insufficient because they are boilerplate assertions that
provide no factual support or notice; (2) the affirmative defenses have no possible relation to the
present controversy; and (3) the affirmative defenses are objectively improper and will prejudice
Plaintiff.
The 34 affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants are patently insufficient and are not
evidently applicable to the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Defendants failed to provide any, let
alone sufficient, factual background to support any of the affirmative defenses asserted, and
instead listed each defense in a formulaic fashion. For example, Defendant merely asserts the
single words, “laches,” “license,” “payment,” and “release” as individual affirmative defenses,
with no explanation or additional information whatsoever. The absence of any supporting or
explanatory facts accompanying each affirmative defense affords no notice whatsoever to
Plaintiff and makes it impossible for Plaintiff to adequately respond. See Robinson, 313 F.3d at
316.
Further, none of the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants relate in any way to the
strict liability Communications Act or conversion counts alleged by Plaintiff. Defendants
additionally assert defenses that directly contradict each other or deal with unrelated subject
matter. For example, Defendants’ twenty-second and twenty-third defenses argue “lack of
personal jurisdiction” and “improper venue,” but Defendants’ Answer states affirmatively that
the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and that venue in this Court is proper. The
Answer also asserts three affirmative defenses related to negligence, despite the fact that
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations of negligence. The defenses are clearly insufficient
as they have no comprehensible relationship to this dispute, but only serve to confuse the issues
here. See Cipollone, 780 F.2d at 188.
Affirmative defenses that will “substantially complicate the discovery proceedings”
prejudice a plaintiff enough to justify granting a Rule 12(f) motion to strike. F.T.C. v. Hope
Now Modifications, LLC, Civ. No. 09-1204 (JBS/JS), 2011 WL 883202 at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 10,
2011) (quoting La. Sulphur Carriers, Inc. v. Gulf Resources & Chemical Corp., 53 F.R.D. 458,
460 (D. Del. 1971)). Plaintiffs risk substantial prejudice by having to expend additional time,
energy, and money on irrelevant and extensive discovery necessary to research each insufficient
and improper affirmative defense. See Robinson, 313 F.3d at 137. Allowing the details of
Defendants’ asserted affirmative defenses to be sorted out during discovery would ultimately
result in extensive guesswork as to the nature and scope of each defense as well as unnecessary
expenditures and motions. Defendants’ 34 affirmative defenses must thus be stricken to avoid
prejudice to Plaintiff.
B.
Rule 11 Sanctions
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide protections against a defendant asserting
frivolous defenses. While the Third Circuit does not require specificity in pleading affirmative
defenses, “Rule 11 therefore is intended to discourage pleadings that are ‘frivolous, legally
unreasonable, or without factual foundation.’” Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 157
(3d. Cir. 1986). A defendant asserting frivolous pleadings or defenses thus may be subject to
sanctions under Rule 11. Id.; Cinema Serv. Corp. v. Edbee Corp., 774 F.2d 584, 586 (3d. Cir.
1985).
Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted here. While the court possesses the inherent
authority to assess attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct, such authority should be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., 930 F.2d
277, 289 (3d Cir. 1991). While Defendants’ conduct is not to be condoned, it does not reach the
level of unreasonableness necessary for sanctions.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’
Affirmative Defenses.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
Dated: November 1, 2013
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?