ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael David LLC's motion to strike defendant Oak Ridge Winery LLC's affirmative defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, and fraud as insufficiently pled and redundant of defendant's counterclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Docket No. 18.)

Rule 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Under Rule 8(c), an affirmative defense "is a defense that does not negate the elements of the plaintiff's claim, but instead precludes liability even if all of the elements of the plaintiff's claim are proven." Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted). An affirmative defense is legally insufficient as a matter of law where "there are no questions of fact," "any questions of law are clear and not in dispute," and "under no set of circumstances could the defense succeed." Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros., 941 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citation omitted). An affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of pleading if it does not "contain sufficient factual matter to state a defense that is `plausible on its face.'" Id. (citation omitted).

Because motions to strike are "often used as delaying tactics," they are "generally disfavored" and are rarely granted in the absence of prejudice to the moving party. Rosales v. Citibank, FSB, 133 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also N.Y.C. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Berry, 667 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("Where the moving party cannot adequately demonstrate . . . prejudice, courts frequently deny motions to strike even though the offending matter was literally within one or more of the categories set forth in Rule 12(f)." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). "Courts must view the pleading under attack in the light most favorable to the pleader, treating as admitted all material facts alleged and all reasonable presumptions that can be drawn therefrom." Rosales, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 1180.

At this stage in the litigation, the court lacks any basis to conclude that there is "no set of circumstances" under which defendant's affirmative defenses could succeed. Ramirez, 941 F. Supp. 2d. at 1204. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it will be prejudiced by these defenses. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses. In so doing, the court expresses no opinion about the merits of plaintiff's claims or defendant's affirmative defenses.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike (Docket No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.