Brooks v. Bank of San Francisco ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 VALERIE BROOKS, individually and No. 2:20-cv-01366-WBS-CKD on behalf of all others 13 similarly situated, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 15 v. 16 BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California corporation; and DOES 17 1 to 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff Valerie Brooks (“plaintiff” or “Brooks”) 22 brought this action against Bank of San Francisco (“defendant” or 23 “Bank of San Francisco”) and Does 1 through 101 seeking damages 24 related to defendant’s alleged violations of the Americans with 25 26 1 The Doe defendants have not appeared and there is no indication as to who they are. Accordingly, the court will refer 27 to Bank of San Francisco as the sole defendant for purposes of this order. 28 1 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and the 2 Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq. Plaintiff’s 3 Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 1-8, 10-13, and 15-18 in 4 Defendant’s Answer is currently before the court. (“Mot. to 5 Strike”) (Docket No. 8).) 6 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “the court 7 may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 8 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” See 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Affirmative defenses can be challenged as 10 a matter of pleading or as a matter of law. See Harris v. 11 Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 625, 627 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12 7, 2014) (Shubb, J.). Plaintiff argues that defendant’s fourth, 13 eighth, eleventh, thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth defenses 14 are insufficient as a matter of pleading because they are merely 15 recitations of legal doctrines with no supporting facts or 16 allegations connecting the doctrine at issue to the facts of the 17 case. (Mot. to Strike at 6, 8–11.) 18 When asserting an affirmative defense, “[a] reference 19 to a doctrine, like a reference to statutory provisions, is 20 insufficient notice.” Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. 21 Supp. 2d 1046, 1049 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2004). Defendant has 22 failed to provide facts sufficient to state the nature and 23 grounds of all these affirmative defenses or to connect the label 24 of the doctrines asserted to the facts of this case. (See Answer 25 at 10–12.) Accordingly, the fourth, eighth, eleventh, 26 thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth defenses fail to provide 27 fair notice as a matter of pleading and conceivably pose a risk 28 that plaintiff will have to engage in futile discovery, see eee IE ON IEE RID OID RIE EI mE OS ESE ISIE EOE EO 1 Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 1180. 2 Plaintiff argues that Affirmative Defenses 10 3 (Reasonable Portion of Website Accessible) and 15 (Lack of 4 Subject Matter Jurisdiction) are not actually affirmative 5 | defenses and should be stricken on that basis. (Mot. to Strike 6 | at 8-10.) “A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not 7 met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” 8 Zivkovic. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 9 2002.) Regardless of whether these defenses are properly 10 characterized as “affirmative,” the court will deny plaintiff's 11 motion to strike these defenses because plaintiff has failed to 12 show that she will suffer any prejudice if these defenses are 13 left in the defendants’ Answer. See Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 14 1180. In fact, it is more likely that the parties and the court 15 have already expended more resources than necessary on this 16 |} motion. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 18 strike defendant’s affirmative defenses be, and the same hereby 19 is, GRANTED as to defendant’s fourth, eighth, eleventh, 20 thirteenth, sixteenth, and eighteenth affirmative defenses, and 21 DENIED in all other respects. 22 Defendant has twenty days from the date this Order is 23 signed to file an amended answer if it can do so consistent with 24 this Order. 25 | Dated: November 17, 2020 be td . ak. 1d 26 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28