MARTIN et al v. HUDSON FARM CLUB, INC. et al

Filing 49

OPINION and ORDER denying 44 Motion to Strike affirmative defenses. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/9/2019. (jr)

NOT FOR PULBICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAVID MARTIN and LUISA MARTIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HUDSON FARM CLUB, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 18-2511 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This personal injury action arises out an accident involving a tractor and attached wagon
on which Plaintiff David Martin (“Martin”) was a passenger. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their Answers
to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants have opposed the motion. The Court has
considered the papers filed by the parties and opted to decide the motion without oral argument,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be
denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

The accident at issue occurred on September 19, 2017 on the property of Defendants
Hudson Farm Club, Inc. and Griffin & Howe, Inc. On that date, a tractor, operated by Defendant
Lukas Sparling, was attached to a wagon used to transport people on the property. Plaintiff
Martin was a passenger in the subject wagon when it “began to ascend a steeply inclined road . . .
came to a stop and then began to descend the path, reversing its course, backwards down the

path, rapidly gaining momentum.” (Second Am. Compl., ¶ 89.) According to the Second
Amended Complaint, the tractor and wagon were out of control and heading toward parked
vehicles. Plaintiffs allege that, to avoid the imminent crash, Martin “jumped off the wagon to
save himself from serious injury . . ..” (Id., ¶ 95.) They further allege that Martin did nothing to
contribute to the accident; rather, they aver that the tractor’s malfunction and wagon’s downhill
roll on a steep incline were caused by a number of negligent acts by Defendants, including,
among others, overloading the wagon with too many passengers, deciding to use a tractor with
insufficient power to pull the wagon, and operating the tractor in a careless manner.
Martin and his wife, Luisa Martin, filed this lawsuit in federal court on February 22,
2018, alleging that the accident and Martin’s injuries were the result of Defendants’ negligence.
On January 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which pleads only two
claims for relief: negligence and loss of consortium. Thereafter, an Answer was filed by
Defendants Hudson Farm Club and Sparling, and a separate Answer was filed by Defendant
Griffin & Howe. Both Answers assert various affirmative defenses. By Order entered May 19,
2019, Magistrate Judge Waldor granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to strike “the Defense of
Culpable Conduct” specifying, however that it was “not a Summary Judgment motion.” (ECF
43).
II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to strike the following affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants
Hudson Farm Club and Sparling:
Second Separate Defense: sole negligence of plaintiff
Third Separate Defense: contributory negligence

2

Sixth Separate Defense: comparative negligence as to the computation of
damages
Ninth Separate Defense: failure to exercise due care and avoid the incident
Eleventh Separate Defense: assumption of risk
They also move to strike the following affirmative defenses asserted by Griffin & Howe:
First Separate Defense: contributory negligence
Second Separate Defense: comparative negligence
Fifth Separate Defense: injuries or damages resulted from plaintiff’s own
deliberate acts
Seventh Separate Defense: claims barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-6, et seq.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants cannot avoid liability by alleging that Martin’s injuries
resulted from his own “culpable conduct,” i.e., his decision to leap from the moving vehicle,
because (1) Martin’s conduct played no part whatsoever in causing the accident and (2) Martin’s
conduct occurred after the negligent conduct of Defendants had already caused the tractor and
wagon to roll down a steep hill. Therefore, they maintain, Defendants cannot rely as a matter of
law on the affirmative defenses which relate to Martin’s allegedly culpable conduct.
Motions to strike affirmative defenses are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f). The rule provides that the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In doing so, the
Court may act on its own or “on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading
or . . . within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Id. An affirmative defense is legally
insufficient if “it is not recognized as a defense to the cause of action.” Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art
Indus., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 200, 217 (D.N.J. 2003). “An affirmative defense can be stricken only if
3

the defense asserted could not possibly prevent recovery under any pleaded or inferable set of
facts.” Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc., 325 F.R.D. 90, 95 (D.N.J. 2018)
(quotations omitted).
While the decision to strike a defense is left to the Court’s discretion, Rule 12(f)
motions are not favored. Id.; see also Eagle View Techs., 325 F.R.D. at 95 (holding that motions
are “highly disfavored”). They should generally be denied “unless the allegations [or defenses]
have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties, or if
the allegations [or defenses] confuse the issues.” Tonka Corp., 836 F. Supp. at 217. Indeed, the
Third Circuit has cautioned that courts “should not grant a motion to strike a defense unless the
insufficiency of the defense is ‘clearly apparent.’” Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 789 F.2d 181,
188 (3d Cir. 1986). In this regard, it is well-established that a motion under Rule 12(f) must be
decided on the basis of the pleadings alone. Eagle View Techs., 325 F.RD. at 95; Tonka Corp.,
836 F. Supp. at 218. Litigants may not use Rule 12(f) motions to challenge the sufficiency of a
defense based on the factual record or to determine disputed questions of law. Tonka Corp., 836
F. Supp. at 218.
In light of this standard, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses will be denied.
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the insufficiency of the challenged affirmative defenses
is clearly apparent from the pleadings. Instead, the entire motion is predicated on facts developed
through discovery, including the deposition testimony of over a dozen witnesses. Plaintiffs have
argued that contributory negligence and the other affirmative defenses are not available to
Defendants based on the timeline of the events at issue, the safety of the tractor involved in the
accident, its alleged inadequacy to pull the wagon, the driver’s lack of due care and other such

4

questions of fact. Indeed, both Plaintiffs and Defendants have briefed this motion to strike as if it
were a summary judgment motion, arguing about the viability and merits of the affirmative
defenses based on the evidence of record. This is not the purpose of a motion to strike under
Rule 12(f). The Court, in its discretion, finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the
affirmative defenses concerning Martin’s allegedly “culpable conduct” have no relation to the
controversy, as set forth in the pleadings, or would cause prejudice and confusion.
III.

ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,
IT IS on this 9th day of August, 2019,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses [ECF 44] be and hereby
is DENIED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge

5