Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 444 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL–October 2012premature elimination of defenses is akinto throwing the baby out with the bathwater. More to the point, the harsh resultof having one’s defenses stricken cannotpossibly be justified in the absence ofmeaningful discovery. So say thedefendants, in any case.(4) Harsh ResultsClearly, applying the heightenedpleading standard to affirmative defensescan lead to harsh results for a defendant.In Aguilar v. City Lights of ChinaRestaurant, the court struck fiveaffirmative defenses: accord andsatisfaction, estoppel, laches,payment/offset, and fraud. 42 As to thefirst four defenses, the court held thatthey were “conclusory legal statementswholly devoid of any supporting factualcontent.” 43 Similarly, in Puryear v.Indiana Pallet Co., 44 the district courtstruck the affirmative defenses of failureto state a claim upon which relief can begranted and the applicable statute oflimitations, finding the former defense a“bare bones assertion,” insufficient tosurvive the heightened pleadingstandard. 45 The court also found that thestatute of limitations defense wasinsufficient as it “fail[ed] to cite to theapplicable statute of limitations, the timelimits in the statute, or the manner inwhich the statute bars Plaintiff’s case.” 46This sets up the proverbial situationof being “stuck between a rock and a hard42 Aguilar, 2011 WL 5118325 at *4.43 Id.44 No. 2:11-CV-12-PRC, 2011 WL 5553697(N.D. Ind. Nov. 15, 2011).45 Id. at *1.46 Id.place.” If the heightened pleadingstandard applies to affirmative defenses,then a defendant may be caught betweenrisking waiver by failing to plead anaffirmative defense, and the courtpotentially finding that an affirmativedefense with no apparent factual supportshould be stricken. Thankfully, a numberof persuasive arguments can be made insupport of the position that Twombly andIqbal do not apply to the pleading ofaffirmative defenses.V. The Defendants’ OppositionAn increasing number of districtcourts have declined to apply theheightened pleading standard ofIqbal/Twombly to a defendant’saffirmative defenses. 47 Accordingly, a47 Recent district court decisions declining toapply the heightened pleading standard ofTwombly/Iqbal to affirmative defenses includethe following: Meas v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,No.11cv0823 JM(JMA), 2011 WL 2837432(S.D. Cal. July 14, 2011); Holdbrook, 2010WL 865380; Michaud v. Greenberg & Sada,P.C., No. 11-cv-01015-RPM-MEH, 2011 WL2885952 (D. Colo. July 18, 2011); Ioselev v.Schilling, No. 3:10-cv-1091-J-34MCR, 2011WL 5855342 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2011);Cottle, 2012 WL 266968; Bayer CropscienceAG v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, No. 10-1045RMB/JS, 2011 WL 6934557 (D. Del. Dec. 30,2011); United States v. Center for DiagnosticImaging, Inc., No. C05-00558RSL, 2011 WL6300174 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2011);Whitserve, LLC v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No.3:11-CV-948 (JCH), 2011 WL 5825712 (D.Conn. Nov. 17, 2011); Brossart v.DIRECTTV, No. 11-786 (DWF/JJK), 2011WL 5374446 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2011); Arosv. United Rentals, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-73(JCH), 2011 WL 5238829 (D. Conn. Oct. 31,2011); Sony/ATV Music Pub. LLC v. D.J.
Fending off the Use of a Rule 12(f) Page 445defendant faced with a motion to strikebrought under Rule 12(f) should focus onsome core rationales that those courtshave used to deny such motions.(1) Motions to Strike areDisfavoredAs a preliminary matter, defendantsshould emphasize that motions to strikepursuant to Rule 12(f) are disfavored. TheFourth Circuit Court of Appeals has notedthat such motions are disfavored,“because striking of a pleading is a drasticremedy and because it is often sought byMiller Distributors, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-01098,2011 WL 4729807 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 7, 2011);Bank of Beaver City v. Southwest Feeders,L.L.C., No. 4:10CV3209, 2011 WL 4632887(D. Neb. Oct. 4, 2011); Leon v. JacobsonTransp. Co., Inc., No. 10 C 4939, 2010 WL4810600 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2010); Vurimindiv. Fuqua School of Business, No. 10-234,2011 WL 3803668 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2011);Ash Grove Cement Co. v. MMR Constructors,Inc., No. 4:10-CV-04069, 2011 WL 3811445(W.D. Ark. Aug. 29, 2011); Baroness SmallEstates, Inc. v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., No.SACV 11-00468-JST (Ex), 2011 WL 3438873(C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011); Security Life ofDenver Ins. Co. v. Shah, No. CV411-008,2011 WL 3300320 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2011);InvestmentSignals, LLC v. Irrisoft, Inc., No.10-cv-600-SM, 2011 WL 3320525 (D. N.H.Aug. 1, 2011); Tyco Fire Products LP v.Victaulic Co., 777 F. Supp.2d 893 (E.D. Pa.2011); GE Capital Commercial, Inc. v.Worthington Nat’l. Bank, No. 3:09-CV-572-L,2011 WL 5025153 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2011);Chiancone v. City of Akron, No. 5:11CV337,2011 WL 4436587 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23,2011); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v.Alborz Petroleum Inc., No. 11cv0889 IEG(CAB), 2011 WL 3515929 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11,2011).the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.” 48Not surprisingly, then, Rule 12(f) motionsto strike are “often not granted unlessthere is a showing of prejudice to themoving party.” 49 In light of the disfavoredstatus of Rule 12(f) motions as vehiclesfor determining questions of fact or lawbefore discovery has taken place, adefendant should stress that it would beinappropriate for a court to strikepleadings prior to any discovery. 50 Thus,the argument goes that applying theheightened pleading standard to a48 See Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore,252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001); see alsoTreece v. Winston-Wood, No. 3:10-2354-DCN-JRM, 2011 WL 6780132, *2 (D. S.C.Dec. 27, 2011); Maupin v. Howard CountyPublic School System, No. L-10-2659, 2012WL 401071, *7 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2012) (notingmotions to strike as a “drastic remedy”); SECv. Gendarme Capital Corp., No. CIV S-11-0053 KJM-KJN, 2012 WL 346457, *1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (“motions to strike aredisfavored and infrequently granted.”); FDICv. Gladstone, 44 F. Supp.2d 81, 84-85 (D.Mass. 1999) (motions to strike affirmativedefenses are generally “disfavored”); KaiserFound. Hospitals v. California Nurses Ass’n,No. 11-5588 SC, 2012 WL 440634, *4 (N.D.Cal. February 10, 2012) (“Motions to Strike‘are generally disfavored because they areoften used as a delaying tactics and because ofthe limited importance of pleadings in federalpractice.’”) (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, 133F. Supp.2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14,2001)).49 WRIGHT AND MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICEAND PROCEDURE, § 1381 (3d ed. 2011).50 See EEOC v. Kelley Drye & Warren, 2011WL 3163443 at *5; see also Holdbrook, 2010WL 865380 at *2 (declining to apply Twomblyto pleading of affirmative defenses,“particularly in light of the disfavored statusof motions to strike.”).
Page 4 and 5:
Page 380advanced in the world, yet
Page 6 and 7:
Page 3822013 midyear MeetingFebruar
Page 8 and 9:
Page 384Defense Counsel JournalBoar
Page 10 and 11:
Page 386Calendarof MeetingsMidyear
Page 12 and 13:
Page 388 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19: Page 394 DEFENSE COUNSEL JOURNAL-Oc
Page 36 and 37: The Global Supply Chain: Understand
Page 62 and 63: Fending off the Use of a Rule 12(f)
Page 78 and 79: Predictability in Punitive Damages:
Page 114 and 115: CONNINGConning theIADC NewslettersI
Page 118 and 119:
Newsletters Page 494TEXAS STATE COU
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136:
U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ow
show all

Defense Counsel Journal - International Association of Defense ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?