Opinion
Case No. 6:11-cv-2002-Orl-31KRS
01-24-2012
LORINDA TANAKA as Assignee of SHAYNA WARDLOW, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a GEICO, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement or to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 12) filed by the Plaintiff and the response (Doc. 18) filed by the Defendant. After reviewing the Defendant's answer, the Court finds that several of the purported affirmative defenses are simply denials ("Plaintiff's Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein fails to set forth facts that give rise to a claim against Defendant") while others are mere placeholders in case evidence supporting the affirmative defense appears during discovery ("To the extent the Plaintiff has failed to make a reasonable effort to mitigate her damages, she is not entitled to relief").
The Court sympathizes with attorneys' efforts to avoid omitting any valid defense their client might have. However, a list of affirmative defenses that includes every conceivable snippet the attorney can think of wastes time and likely violates Rule 11. Rather than spend the time required at this stage of the proceedings to figure out which, if any, have the required factual and legal substance, the Court will strike all of the affirmative defenses and allow the Defendant to replead the legitimate ones.
Pursuant to Rule 11, every attorney submitting a paper to the Court certifies that, "to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances ... the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law [and] the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery."
It should be noted that, if the Defendant were to uncover evidence supporting a previously unpled affirmative defense, the Court would be willing to entertain a motion to amend the answer.
--------
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for More Definite Statement or to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and the Defendant's affirmative defenses are stricken. Should the Defendant choose to do so, the Defendant may file an amended answer on or before February 6, 2012, containing a list of affirmative defenses that comply with the applicable Federal Rules.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on January 24, 2012.
_______________
GREGORY A. PRESNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party