American Entertainers, L.L.C. v. City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina
ORDER denying 15 Motion to Strike. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for further information. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 12/12/2014. (Edwards, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
AMERICAN ENTERTAINERS LLC,
CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH
On October 22, 2014, American Entertainers LLC ("American Entertainers" or "plaintiff'')
moved to strike certain affirmative defenses in the City of Rocky Mount's ("Rocky Mount" or
"defendant") answer [D.E. 15]. On November 7, 2014, Rocky Mount responded in opposition [D.E.
19]. As explained below, the motion to strike is denied.
Rule 12(t) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to "strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense ...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(t). Motions to strike are disfavored.
Waste Mgmt. Holdings. Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001); Hill v. Robeson Cnty.,
733 F. Supp. 2d 676,690 (E.D.N.C 2010).
American Entertainers operates an "exotic dance" club in Rocky Mount and filed a 46-page,
nine-count complaint seeking a declaratory judgment under federal and state law. Compl. [D.E. 1].
American Entertainers alleges that Rocky Mount violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First
Amendment, the North Carolina Constitution, North Carolina contract law, and North Carolina land
use law. See id.
The court has reviewed the complaint and the affirmative defenses at issue in the motion to
strike. The court denies American Entertainers's motion to strike the second, third, and fifth
affirmative defenses as baseless. As for the fourth affirmative defense, Rocky Mount asserts a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Answer [D.E. 13] 19 (fourth affirmative defense).
Of course, American Entertainers did not have to exhaust administrative remedies with Rocky
Mount before filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment.
Patsy v. Bd.
ofRegents ofFla., 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982). Nonetheless, Rocky Mount appears to direct the fourth
affirmative defense to one of American Entertainers's state-law claims to the extent that American
Entertainers seeks a declaration that the club conforms with Rocky Mount's Land Development
Code. See Answer 19 (fourth affirmative defense). At this stage of the litigation, American
Entertainers has failed to demonstrate that this defense to a state-law claim is "insufficient." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f). Whether the fourth affirmative defense ultimately will have merit concerning any
of plaintiffs state-law claims is an issue for another day.
In sum, plaintiffs motion to strike [D.E. 15] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This _il.day ofDecember 2014.
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?