Dahl v. Trans-Trade Brokers, Inc. et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying pltf's 60 Motion to strike affirmative defenses by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JESPER DAHL,
Plaintiff,

10

v.

11
12

TRANS-TRADE BROKERS, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants.

13
14

No. C11-01993RSL

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Affirmative

15

Defenses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).” Dkt. # 60. Having reviewed the memoranda and

16

declaration submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows:

17

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Skinner’s affirmative defense of unclean hands

18

is untimely. Defendant Skinner filed his amended answer on May 2, 2012. Any challenge to

19

the sufficiency of a defense asserted therein had to be filed by May 23, 2012 pursuant to Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2).

21

(2) In response to plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses, defendants Trans-

22

Trade Brokers, Anderson, Brinks, and Blondin filed an amended answer which includes

23

additional factual allegations that have been considered when determining the sufficiency of

24

the unclean hands and fraudulent inducement defenses. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument in

25

reply, the amended answer was timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).

26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1

(3) Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the factual allegations offered in support of

2

defendants’ unclean hands and fraudulent inducement defenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).1

3

Rule 9(b) applies to all allegations of fraud and requires that the circumstances constituting

4

fraud be pled with particularity. The heightened pleading requirement is intended to provide

5

the party accused of fraud with notice of the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the

6

misconduct charged, to deter the assertion of unsubstantiated and damaging accusations, and to

7

reduce the likelihood of baseless fishing expeditions and/or pressures to settle having nothing

8

to do with the merits. See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009);

9

Bly-Magee v. Calif., 236 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317

10

F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).

11

Taking the allegations of the amended answer as a whole and considering the

12

purposes of Rule 9(b), the Court finds that defendants’ allegations are sufficient. Defendants

13

have identified specific false statements (e.g., the amount of accounts payable), why they were

14

false, the context in which those statements were made, plaintiff’s contemporaneous

15

knowledge of falsity, and plaintiff’s motive to induce reliance on the false statements. No

16

more is required.2

17
18
19
20
21
22
1

23
24
25
26

Because plaintiff’s challenge is to the adequacy of the pleading under Rule 9(b), the
Court need not determine whether the Supreme Court’s revised interpretation of Rule 8(a) (see Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)) applies to
affirmative defenses.
2

The Court assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that defendants’ unclean hands defense is
based on the same inequitable conduct that supports the fraudulent inducement defense.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

-2-

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses
(Dkt. # 60) is DENIED.

3
4

Dated this 20th day of July, 2012.

5

A
Robert S. Lasnik

6
7

United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

-3-