From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holdbrook v. SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 8, 2010
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02870-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2010)

Summary

noting disagreement amongst district courts and concluding best approach is that Twombly / Iqbal standards do not apply to affirmative defenses

Summary of this case from H.S. Field Servs., Inc. v. CEP Mid-Continent, LLC

Opinion

Civil Case No. 09-cv-02870-LTB-BNB.

March 8, 2010


ORDER


This case is before me on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc # 8]. After consideration of the motion and all related pleadings, I deny the motion for the reasons set forth below.

I. Background

In this wrongful termination action, Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint includes a section entitled "Affirmative Defenses" which states:

In addition to the defenses stated above, Defendants (sic) assert the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed in whole or in part under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.
3. Defendant's conduct as it related to the Plaintiff was reasonable and taken in good faith.
4. Plaintiff has been the cause of his own damages, if any.
5. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be untimely and/or barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.
6. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and/or statutory prerequisites before bringing this lawsuit.
7. Plaintiff's claims for damages or injuries, if any, arising out of or in the course of his employment are barred in whole or in part by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Colorado Worker's Compensation Act.
8. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, on the ground that the actions alleged either do not state any viable public policy upon which a public policy wrongful discharge claim can be based and/or there are other statutory remedies available for such claims.
9. Defendant reserves the right to add additional defenses as appropriate upon completion of discovery.

Plaintiff argues that the affirmative defenses set forth in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 should be stricken for noncompliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 as interpreted in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).

II. Standard of Review

Under Rule 8(b)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., a party responding to a pleading must "state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it." Under Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., a court may strike "an insufficient defense" from a pleading. "Motions to strike, however, are generally a disfavored and drastic remedy." Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass'n, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275, 285 (D. Colo. 1997). Nonetheless, the decision to grant a motion to strike rests within the sound discretion of the Court. Vanderhurst v. Colo. Mountain Coll. Dist., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1303 (D. Colo. 1998).

III. Analysis

To prevail on his motion to strike, Plaintiff need not show that Defendant's defenses have no bearing on the controversy or that he is prejudiced by them. Rather, these requirements are applicable when a motion to strike is predicated on a pleading's inclusion of allegations that are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (court may strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter). Resolution of Plaintiff's motion to strike therefore turns on whether the pleading requirements set forth in Twombley and Iqbal are applicable to affirmative defenses.

Under Twombley and Iqbal, a complaint must provide more than labels and conclusions or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 557; Iqbal 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Defendant's affirmative defenses seemingly fail to meet these pleading standards. However, in both Twombley and Iqbal, the Supreme Court's analysis was limited to the requirements for pleadings stating a claim for relief which are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The standard under Rule 8(a)(2) is similar but not identical to that under Rule 8(b)(1)(A). Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief") with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1) ("in responding to a pleading, a party must . . . state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it"). Moreover, as noted by Defendant, it is reasonable to impose stricter pleading requirements on a plaintiff who has significantly more time to develop factual support for his claims than a defendant who is only given 20 days to respond to a complaint and assert its affirmative defenses.

I recognize that some district courts have extended the pleading requirements or Twombley and Iqbal to affirmative defenses, see e.g. Holtzman v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 2008 WL 2225668 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2008), but conclude that the better-reasoned approach is that taken by other district courts that have declined to do so, see e.g. First Nat'l Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Camps Serv., Ltd., 2009 WL 22861 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2009), particularly in light of the disfavored status of motions to strike.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc #8] is DENIED.


Summaries of

Holdbrook v. SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 8, 2010
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02870-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2010)

noting disagreement amongst district courts and concluding best approach is that Twombly / Iqbal standards do not apply to affirmative defenses

Summary of this case from H.S. Field Servs., Inc. v. CEP Mid-Continent, LLC

highlighting the fact that the defendant generally only has twenty days to file their responsive pleading, while the plaintiff has as long as the applicable statute of limitation allows

Summary of this case from Bennett v. Sprint Nextl Corp.

declining to apply Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative defenses in part because a defendant is given only 20 days to respond to a complaint and assert its affirmative defenses

Summary of this case from Lane v. Page

noting that, unlike Rule 8, Rule 8(b) does not require the pleader to "sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief"

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Company v. U.S.

declining to apply Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative defenses in part because a defendant is given only 20 days to respond to a complaint and assert its affirmative defenses

Summary of this case from Ameristar Fence Products, Inc. v. Phoenix Fence Company
Case details for

Holdbrook v. SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DAVID CHARLES HOLDBROOK, Plaintiff, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 8, 2010

Citations

Civil Case No. 09-cv-02870-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2010)

Citing Cases

Lane v. Page

Ameristar Fence Prod., Inc. v. Phx. Fence Co., No. CV-10-299-PHX-DGC, 2010 WL 2803907, at *1 (D. Ariz. July…

Wells Fargo Company v. U.S.

An affirmative defense is not a claim for relief, and neither Rule 8(a)(2) nor any other rule requires a…