Girl Scouts of Manitou Council Inc v. Girl Scouts of the United States of America Inc

Filing 115

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 3/16/09 denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ G IR L SCOUTS OF MANITOU COUNCIL, INC., Plaintiff, v. G IR L SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES O F AMERICA, INC., D e fe n d a n t. ____________________________________________ C a s e No. 08-CV-184

ORDER
O n April 14, 2008, plaintiff Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. ("Manitou") filed a motion to strike multiple paragraphs of defendant Girl Scouts of the United States o f America, Inc.'s ("GSUSA") answer. Manitou claims that many of GSUSA's

a n s w e rs and all of its affirmative defenses are defect and insufficient as a matter of la w . The court delayed its consideration of this motion during the pendency of M a n ito u 's appeals to the Seventh Circuit and, in light of the court's February 3, 2009, s c h e d u lin g order, allowing the parties until March 10, 2009, to amend their pleadings w ith o u t leave of the court.1 Manitou has filed an amendment to its original complaint, a d d in g three additional counts. (Docket #112). GSUSA has asked that the court re fra in from ruling on Manitou's motion until GSUSA has an opportunity to respond to Manitou's amendment. (Docket #114). However, Manitou's amendment does not

The court notes that Manitou had also filed an Am e n d e d Com p la in t , which it later withdrew. (Order, D e c e m b e r 18, 2008, Docket #106).

1

a p p e a r to affect its motion to strike. Therefore, the court finds no reason to further d e la y the resolution of Manitou's motion to strike. O n February 29, 2008, Manitou filed a complaint against GSUSA, which in c lu d e s ten separate counts under W is c o n s in 's Fair Dealership Law, breach of c o n tra c t, tortious interference with business relationships, economic coercion and in ju ry to business and restraint of will.2 (Docket #1). On March 24, 2008, GSUSA a n s w e r e d Manitou's complaint and asserted twenty-two affirmative defenses. (D o c k e t #17). Manitou moves to strike portions of GSUSA's answer pursuant to Rules 12(f) o f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(f) allows the court to strike

in s u ffic ie n t defenses, or any immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matters contained in a pleading. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Striking portions of a party's pleading is a re la tive ly drastic remedy. See Love v. Gardison, No. 07-C-816, 2008 W L 1968732, a t *1 (E.D. W is. 2008). As a result, to prevail on a motion to strike, the moving party m u s t demonstrate that the portions of the pleading it challenges are clearly unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation, and that the moving party will suffer prejudice if those portions remain. See Black v. Long Term Disability Ins., 373 F.Supp.2d 897, 9 0 4 (E.D. W is . 2005) (citation omitted). W h e n seeking to strike an affirmative d e fen s e , the moving party must show that the challenged defense is legally in s u ffic ie n t. See Seabolt v. Champagne, No. 05-C-1240, 2006 W L 3192511, at *1

2

Manitou's complaint asserts the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

-2 -

(E .D . W is . 2006) (citation omitted). In considering a motion to strike, the court views th e challenged pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See K r ip p e lz v. Ford Motor Co., No. 98-C-2361, 2003 W L 21087109, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2 0 0 3 ). U n d e r Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party responding to a pleading must state defenses to each claim asserted in short and plain terms. S e e Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(A). In doing so, the responding party must either admit or d e n y the allegations asserted in the pleading. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(B). The re s p o n d in g party may deny an allegation by stating that the responding party lacks k n o w le d g e or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation, o r the responding party may, in good faith, deny only part of an allegation and admit th e rest. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(4-5). A responsive pleading must also include any a vo id a n c e or affirmative defense. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1). In federal court, the p r im a r y role of the pleadings is to provide notice of the parties' claims and defenses, a n d to thereby facilitate a proper resolution on the merits. See Pepper v. Village of O a k Park, 430 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 4 8 (1957)). 1. G S U S A 's Responses to Manitou's allegations In support of its motion, Manitou claims that many of GSUSA's answers are n o n re s p o n s iv e or evasive because they either attempt to admit to contrived factual a lle g a tio n s not contained in the complaint, they add averments that certain of

-3-

M a n ito u 's allegations are legal conclusions, or because they essentially ignore the a lle g a tio n s to which they purport to respond. Manitou argues that these deficiencies h a ve made it difficult for it to assess which allegations have been denied. GSUSA re s p o n d s by arguing that it made a good faith effort to respond to all of the a lle g a tio n s in Manitou's complaint, and asserts that many of Manitou's allegations w e re inflammatory and included mischaracterizations of the facts. F ro m the court's review of Manitou's complaint, and GSUSA's answer, it a p p e a r s that both parties have not limited themselves to the short, plain and concise s ta te m e n t requirements of Rule 8. However, with the exception of two responses, G S U S A has either denied or admitted all of Manitou's extensive allegations. The tw o responses in which GSUSA never admits or denies the corresponding a lle g a tio n s are found in paragraphs 58 and 197. In responding to paragraph 58 of the complaint, which references a letter between the parties, GSUSA merely refers th e court to the letter from which the allegation was taken. In response to paragraph 1 9 7 , which alleges a W is c o n s in statute was in effect at the time of the parties' d is p u te , GSUSA claims that a response is not required because the allegation is a le g a l conclusion. Because these two responses are not proper denials under Rule 8 (b ), the allegations to which they respond are deemed admitted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 ( b ) (6 ) . W ith respect to the rest of the GSUSA's responses that Manitou challenges, w h ile they may include information beyond that which is strictly required by Rule 8 (b ), the court is not convinced that striking portions of GSUSA's responses is

-4-

a p p ro p ria te in this case.

The court finds no prejudicial effect from GSUSA's

a tte m p ts to deny parts of allegations and admit other portions. To the extent that G S U S A does not deny allegations in its answer, those portions of Manitou's a lle g a tio n s should be deemed admitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. T h e r e fo r e , the court denies Manitou's motion to strike GSUSA's responses. 2. G S U S A 's Affirmative Defenses N e xt, Manitou asserts that the affirmative defenses GSUSA includes in its a n s w e r are insufficient because they do not set forth the necessary elements of the d e fe n s e s they purport to allege, or because they set forth factual denials rather than tru e affirmative defenses. GSUSA responds by arguing that its affirmative defenses re fle c t a "cautious pleader" approach, and that all of its defenses are adequate under th e plain notice doctrine of pleadings. In general, the court will refrain from striking affirmative defenses "if they are s u ffic ie n t as a matter of law or if they present questions of law or fact." Heller F in a n c ia l v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). In diversity c a s e s , the legal sufficiency of an affirmative defense is often governed by the state la w applicable to the case. See Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., 944 F.2d 1388, 1400 (7 th Cir. 1991). After reviewing the twenty-two affirmative defenses in GSUSA's answer, the c o u rt finds that Manitou has not met its burden of showing any of GSUSA's a ffirm a tive defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. Specifically, Manitou has not

-5-

e xp la in e d to the court exactly how each affirmative defense is so lacking under the c o n tro llin g substantive law as to be considered mere clutter. Although GSUSA's a lle g e d affirmative defenses may not ultimately carry the day in this case, they a p p e a r sufficient to raise questions of fact and law and provide Manitou adequate n o tic e . As a result, the court is obliged to deny Manitou's motion to strike in its e n t ir e t y . A c c o r d in g ly , IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike (Docket #26), be and the same is hereby DENIED; D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 16th day of March, 2009. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-6-