Jeanne L. Welch-Kurdle and Aaron Kurdle v. Doxa LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion to strike or make more definite J.B. Hunt Transportation Inc.’s affirmative defenses. The court upheld nine defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, required J.B. Hunt to provide a more definite statement for one defense under Rule 12(e), and struck fifteen defenses under Rule 12(f).

Holdings

1. Affirmative defenses 2, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 were sufficiently pleaded because they stated intelligible legal theories in short and plain terms and provided fair notice.
2. Affirmative defense number 7, asserting waiver, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, was so vague and unintelligible that plaintiffs could not reasonably prepare a response; J.B. Hunt was ordered to file a more definite statement within 14 days.
3. Affirmative defenses 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 25 were stricken as insufficient because they merely denied elements of plaintiffs' claims or otherwise failed to plead facts supporting an avoidance or affirmative matter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether J.B. Hunt's affirmative defenses satisfied the short-and-plain pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
2. Whether affirmative defense number 7 was so vague or ambiguous that plaintiffs were entitled to a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
3. Whether the remaining challenged defenses were insufficient under Rule 12(f) because they merely denied elements of plaintiffs' claims or failed to plead affirmative matter.

Disposition

other