- 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alexia Cabanillas, et al., No. CV-20-00894-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 4716 Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative 16 Defenses Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).* (Doc. 47.) The Motion here targets some, but 17 not all, of the affirmative defenses asserted in the Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended 18 Complaint. In their responsive brief, Defendants agree that their Fourth Affirmative 19 Defense, that “[a]ll or part of the claims in this action are barred by the de minimis doctrine” 20 (Doc. 44 at 9 ¶ 4), is an insufficient defense and should be stricken. Defendants oppose the 21 remainder of the Motion. 22 Rule 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient 23 defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 12(f). Motions to strike are disfavored because they seek a drastic remedy and are often 25 used as a delaying tactic. XY Skin Care & Cosmetics, LLC v. Hugo Boss USA, Inc., No. 26 CV-08-1467-PHX-ROS, 2009 WL 2382998, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2009). “As such, even 27 * Neither party has requested oral argument. The Court believes that oral argument would 28 not significantly aid the decisional process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (court may decide motions without oral hearing); LRCiv 7.2(f) (same). 1 when a motion to strike an insufficient defense is ‘technically appropriate and well- 2 founded, Rule 12(f) motions often are not granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice 3 to the moving party.’” BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Inc., No. CV-18-02332-PHX- 4 JAT, 2019 WL 6065782, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2019) (quoting 5C Charles A. Wright & 5 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1381 n.34 (3d ed. 2019)). The Ninth 6 Circuit applies a “fair notice standard” to motions to strike affirmative defenses. Adidas 7 Am., Inc. v. Aviator Nation, Inc., 3:19-CV-02049-HZ, 2021 WL 91623, at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 8 10, 2021). Under the fair notice standard, an affirmative defense need only describe the 9 nature of the defense “in ‘general terms.’” Id. (quoting Kohler v. Flavia Enterprises, Inc., 10 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015)). 11 The Court is disinclined to grant Plaintiffs’ motion at this early stage in the litigation 12 process. First, the Court will not take up what appears to be Plaintiffs’ offer to engage in 13 an in-depth evaluation of the merits of the affirmative defenses. Second, to the extent that 14 Plaintiffs complain that the Answer does not provide fair notice of the nature of the 15 affirmative defenses, any such deficiency appears to have been corrected to some degree 16 in Defendants’ responsive brief. For example, Defendants have provided additional 17 information on their statute of limitations and waiver affirmative defenses. They also 18 explain that the release of claims, collateral estoppel, and res judicata defenses may apply 19 to a future plaintiff that is subject to this FLSA collective action. Defendants further 20 acknowledge therein that one of their asserted affirmative defenses is insufficient as a 21 matter of law. Third, Defendants bear the burden of proof to establish affirmative defenses 22 and, if that proof does not exist, Plaintiffs may later move for summary judgment. 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative 25 Defenses Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (Doc. 47) as to the Fourth Affirmative Defense 26 – the de minimis doctrine – only. The Motion is denied in all other respects. 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration (Doc. 43) and the Motion for Issuance of Notice and Conditional Certification Pursuant to 3 || Fair Labor Standards Act (Doc. 46) remain pending. 4 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2021. 5 ° Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _3-
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:20-cv-00894
Filed Date: 3/3/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024