Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 15). Upon review and consideration, the Court determines the motion should be denied. BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid compensation earned while employed as a Fleet Buyer for Defendants' vehicle sales business from August 2009, until August 2015. Plaintiff alleges the following claims in his Amended Complaint: (1) Breach
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 15). Upon review and consideration, the Court determines the motion should be denied. BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid compensation earned while employed as a Fleet Buyer for Defendants' vehicle sales business from August 2009, until August 2015. Plaintiff alleges the following claims in his Amended Complaint: (1) Breach ..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 15). Upon review and consideration, the Court determines the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
In this action, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid compensation earned while employed as a Fleet Buyer for Defendants' vehicle sales business from August 2009, until August 2015. Plaintiff alleges the following claims in his Amended Complaint: (1) Breach of Contract for unpaid salary and commissions; (2) Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in violation of Florida's Minimum Wage Law, Art. X, Section 24, Florida Constitution; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (5) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in violation of the FLSA; and (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.110 ("FMWA").
On February 25, 2016, Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants' First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Affirmative Defenses.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a "court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." However, motions to strike affirmative defenses are generally disfavored by the courts. As explained by one court:
[C]ourts do not generally exercise their discretion to strike a pleading unless the matter has no possible relation to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party. As a result courts disfavor motions to strike and often consider them to be "time wasters." An affirmative defense will only be stricken . . . if the defense is insufficient as a matter of law. A defense is insufficient as a matter of law only if: (1) on the face of the pleadings, it is patently frivolous, or (2) it is clearly invalid as a matter of law. To the extent that a defense puts into issue relevant and substantial legal and factual questions, it is sufficient and may survive a motion to strike, particularly when there is no showing of prejudice to the movant.
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-226-MP-GRJ, 2012 WL 2377840, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 25, 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); see also Woodman v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-2025-Orl-40TBS, 2015 WL 1836941, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. April 21, 2015).
Defendants' First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Affirmative Defenses are sufficient to place Plaintiff on notice of Defendants' defenses to the legal claims. For example, Defendants' First Affirmative Defense, Accord and Satisfaction, states in five enumerated paragraphs that Defendants paid Plaintiff in full satisfaction of "all severance and revenues" Plaintiff claims to be owed and attaches a check (Exhibit A) as example of same. Plaintiff quibbles with the fact that Defendants do not articulate the particular claim or claims that the affirmative defense relates to and notes that accord and satisfaction is unavailable as a defense to a claim arising under the FLSA. The Court disagrees that this level of specificity is required. And Plaintiff does not show how this lack of detail prejudices him. Simply put, the Affirmative Defenses are sufficient to alert Plaintiff of the potential defenses in this case.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 15) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED.
