Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Eric Lund’s three motions to strike defenses and affirmative defenses asserted in the first amended answers of City, County, and State defendants. The court held that the challenged defenses were not redundant, were pleaded with sufficient fair notice, and were not legally insufficient at the pleading stage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants' defenses and affirmative defenses should be stricken as redundant under Rule 12(f).
- Whether defendants' defenses and affirmative defenses failed to provide fair notice and were therefore insufficiently pleaded.
- Whether defendants' affirmative defenses were legally insufficient because they lacked merit under any set of facts defendants might allege.
- Whether alleged immaterial matter, negative defenses, purported counterclaims, a reservation of defenses, or claimed prejudice warranted striking portions of defendants' answers.
Holdings
- The challenged defenses and affirmative defenses were not redundant within the meaning of Rule 12(f), so they would not be stricken on that basis.
- The defenses and affirmative defenses provided fair notice of their nature and grounds and were not insufficiently pleaded.
- The affirmative defenses were not legally insufficient because they did not clearly lack merit under every set of facts defendants might allege.
- The additional arguments did not warrant striking the answers. Mislabeling a negative defense is not grounds for striking it; the references to costs and expenses were not counterclaims; the reservation of defenses was not prejudicial; and the claimed discovery burden did not establish undue prejudice.
Key quotations
“Rule 12(f) provides that a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”” (at 2)
“The key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” (at 3)
“The ‘fair notice’ required by the pleading standards only requires describing the defense in ‘general terms.’” (at 5)
“an affirmative defense is legally insufficient only if it clearly lacks merit “under any set of facts the defendant might allege.”” (at 6)
Factual background
Eric Lund was formerly a sworn California Highway Patrol employee. Vacaville police officers arrested him in 2014, and he was later prosecuted and convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to five years in prison. The defendants included Vacaville police officers, California Highway Patrol officers, and Solano County district attorneys involved in the investigation, arrest, prosecution, and termination of Lund's employment.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action in 2019 and later filed a Third Amended Complaint asserting 22 claims related to his arrest and conviction. The court previously granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss and allowed leave to amend, but plaintiff did not file another amended complaint. Defendants filed operative answers on December 30, 2024, after which plaintiff filed three motions to strike.