Hassebroek v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled on Plaintiff Bobbi Lynn Hassebroek’s motion to strike affirmative defenses asserted by United Parcel Service, Inc. in an action alleging an intentional tort under Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation statute. The court struck the comparative-fault and contributory-negligence defenses, allowed the third-party acts, pre-existing injury, and intervening-cause defenses to remain, and noted that Defendant had withdrawn its sudden-emergency defense. The motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. Affirmative Defense Nos. 6 and 10, asserting contributory negligence and comparative fault, are immaterial and were properly stricken because those doctrines do not serve as defenses to the intentional-tort claim pleaded by Plaintiff.
2. Affirmative Defense Nos. 7, 8, and 11 were not stricken because, when considered in the context of the complaint, they had a possible relation to the tort claim and sufficiently apprised Plaintiff of their nature for pleading purposes.
3. The motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part: Affirmative Defense No. 12 was withdrawn, Nos. 6 and 10 were stricken, and Nos. 7, 8, and 11 were allowed to remain.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's affirmative defenses asserting contributory negligence and comparative fault should be stricken as immaterial to Plaintiff's intentional-tort claim.
2. Whether affirmative defenses based on third-party acts, preexisting injuries, and intervening cause should be stricken as insufficiently pleaded or lacking a possible relation to the claims.
3. Whether Rule 12(f) permits striking abbreviated affirmative defenses when the complaint and answer together provide fair notice of the defenses.

Disposition

other