Kent M. Bryan v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied plaintiff Kent M. Bryan’s motion to strike the defendants’ ten affirmative defenses in an action concerning the denial of a Lake Tahoe mooring-buoy permit. The court held that the motion improperly addressed the substantive merits of the defenses and that plaintiff had not shown legal insufficiency, lack of fair notice, or prejudice. The court also granted plaintiff’s motion to deem his reply brief timely filed.

Holdings

1. A motion to strike affirmative defenses is not the proper vehicle for deciding the substantive merits of those defenses, and affirmative defenses should not be stricken merely because they may ultimately fail.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish that any of the asserted affirmative defenses was legally insufficient because he did not show that the defense could not succeed under any circumstances.
3. The affirmative defenses would not be stricken because plaintiff had fair notice of them and did not show that inclusion of any defense prejudiced him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants' ten pleaded affirmative defenses were legally insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
2. Whether the affirmative defenses should be stricken because plaintiff disputed their merits, asserted they were refuted by the pleadings or premature, or claimed that evidence would defeat them.
3. Whether plaintiff demonstrated prejudice or lack of fair notice sufficient to warrant striking any affirmative defense.

Disposition

other