Lund v. Datzman, et al.

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.

Holdings

1. 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.
2. The defenses and affirmative defenses provided fair notice of their nature and grounds and were not insufficiently pleaded.
3. The affirmative defenses were not legally insufficient because they did not clearly lack merit under every set of facts defendants might allege.
4. 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.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' defenses and affirmative defenses should be stricken as redundant under Rule 12(f).
2. Whether defendants' defenses and affirmative defenses failed to provide fair notice and were therefore insufficiently pleaded.
3. Whether defendants' affirmative defenses were legally insufficient because they lacked merit under any set of facts defendants might allege.
4. Whether alleged immaterial matter, negative defenses, purported counterclaims, a reservation of defenses, or claimed prejudice warranted striking portions of defendants' answers.

Disposition

other