Cosmonova, LLC v. Biofilm, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part Cosmonova, LLC’s motion to strike affirmative defenses asserted by Biofilm, Inc. and Combe, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The court struck multiple defenses as factually insufficient, legally insufficient, duplicative of denials, or immaterial, but declined to strike the apportionment defense. The court also struck the defendants’ reservation of additional affirmative defenses and granted leave to amend the answer within seven days.

Holdings

1. An affirmative defense must provide fair notice of its basis. Merely naming a well-established defense may sometimes suffice, but additional factual matter is required when necessary to identify the grounds for the defense.
2. The sixth good-faith defense, twelfth laches defense, thirteenth estoppel/ratification/waiver/consent/assumption-of-risk defense, fourteenth unjust-enrichment defense, seventeenth unclean-hands defense, and twenty-second bad-faith defense were factually insufficient and were properly stricken.
3. A defense that merely denies an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case or attacks the legal or factual sufficiency of the complaint is not an affirmative defense and may be stricken as redundant or unnecessary.
4. The tenth apportionment defense was not stricken because, construed in the light most favorable to Defendants, it could allege the possibility of other liable parties and rely on facts outside the complaint.
5. A generalized reservation of all affirmative defenses is immaterial or duplicative and may be stricken because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 already preserves the right to amend pleadings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants' sixth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, seventeenth, and twenty-second affirmative defenses were factually insufficient because they failed to provide fair notice of the grounds for the defenses.
2. Whether Defendants' first, third through fifth, eighth through eleventh, fifteenth, sixteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-third through twenty-fifth defenses were legally insufficient because they were denials of elements, attacks on the sufficiency of the complaint, unavailable theories, or otherwise not affirmative defenses.
3. Whether Defendants' tenth apportionment defense was sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to strike.
4. Whether Defendants' reservation of all affirmative defenses should be stricken as immaterial or duplicative.

Disposition

other