HONORABLE SARA LIOI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on the appeal of plaintiff/appellant
For the reasons that follow, the bankruptcy court's orders are affirmed.
This case has a long history. The Court will briefly recite enough history here to provide context, with more detail provided later in the opinion as necessary for the
An economic downturn led to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on February 28, 2010 by Schwab Industries and its affiliates ("debtors"). United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio Case No. 10-60702 ("Bankruptcy Case"). The debtors were unable to secure sufficient post-petition financing to permit reorganization, and their assets were liquidated through an auction sale in the Bankruptcy Case. Id. Cement Resources, LLC ("CR") was the stalking horse bidder,
During the Bankruptcy Case, Pidcock served as a financial advisor to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ("Committee"). Id. at *1 n.1. Pidcock brings this Adversary Case as creditor trustee, alleging that the Schwabs, as directors and shareholders of Schwab Industries, breached their fiduciary duties and harmed the estate. Specifically, Pidcock alleges that the Schwabs elevated their personal interests over the interests of the debtors and creditors during the bankruptcy sale of debtors' assets by negotiating side agreements with CR and Oldcastle for post-sale management positions and compensation, which diminished the sale value of the assets. Id. at *2.
The Schwabs moved for summary judgment, arguing that adversary claims are barred by res judicata, and the bankruptcy court granted the motion. Pidcock appealed and filed his appellant's brief (Doc. No. 18 ["Brief"]). Appellees filed a redacted and unredacted opposition brief (Doc. Nos. 20 and 22 ["Opp'n"], respectively), as did the creditor trustee with respect to his reply brief
The Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1)(B). The bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment to defendants/appellees is a final appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). In re Midway Motor Sales, Inc., 407 B.R. 442 (Table), 2009 WL 1940719, at *1 (6th Cir.
(Brief at 425-26 (footnote added).)
Under Bankr. R. 7056, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 governs motions for summary judgment in adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. A grant of summary judgment by the bankruptcy court is reviewed de novo, using the same Rule 56 standard as used by the bankruptcy court. Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
Summary judgment is proper if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may be drawn from the facts, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed. 2d 538 (1986). To prevail, the non-movant must show sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. Klepper v. First Am. Bank, 916 F.2d 337, 342 (6th Cir. 1990). A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Entry of summary judgment is appropriate "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Under this standard, the bankruptcy court's legal determinations are reviewed de novo, Behlke v. Eisen (In re Behlke), 358 F.3d 429, 433 (6th Cir. 2004).
Appellant does not take issue with the four elements applied by the bankruptcy court to establish res judicata:
Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *5-6.
The first two elements were not disputed by the parties before the bankruptcy court (id. at *6), and Pidcock maintains that only elements 3 and 4 of the bankruptcy court's res judicata analysis are challenged on appeal.
Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *7.
"To determine whether an issue should have been litigated in an earlier lawsuit, the Sixth Circuit says that `[w]here the two causes of action arise from the same transaction, or series of transactions, the plaintiff should have litigated both causes in the first action and may not litigate the second issue later.'" SII Liquidation Co., No. 10-60702, 2014 WL 5325930, at *9 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2014) ("Goddard") (quoting Holder v. City of Cleveland, 287 Fed.Appx. 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2008) (further citation omitted)). The issue, then, is whether the adversary claims regarding the Schwabs' self-dealing to the detriment of the estate should have been brought during the sale process in the Bankruptcy Case.
Pidcock maintains that the answer is "no" because the bankruptcy court erroneously applied Winget in analyzing the third prong of the res judicata analysis, and
The creditor trustee contends the adversary claims could not be brought during the Bankruptcy Case due to the Schwabs' "affirmative concealment of the breadth of the negotiations with both Cement Resources and Oldcastle." Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *8. Affirmative concealment may prevent the application of res judicata to bar subsequent litigation, but mere silence is not enough. "[P]roof of something akin to fraudulent concealment is necessary." Id. (citing Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 770 (6th Cir. 2002)). The elements of fraudulent concealment are:
Id.
Applying Winget, the bankruptcy court concluded that the Schwabs' negotiations with CR and Oldcastle were not affirmatively concealed. Pidcock contends that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied Winget in reaching this conclusion.
The bankruptcy court found the record established that the Schwabs' negotiations with CR were known by the parties to the sale process and to Pidcock during the Bankruptcy Case. See id. at *2 and *8. For example, the Committee filed objections in the bankruptcy case regarding the bid procedure and appointment of CR as the stalking horse bidder, citing CR's negotiations with the Schwabs and other possible interference by the debtors with the competitive bidding process. Following a hearing, however, the parties submitted an agreed order stating that "[t]he objections of the Committee of Unsecured Creditors and [other creditor] are resolved." Id. at *3 (quoting the record). During the sale process, the Committee renewed its objections regarding self-dealing, calling the CR bid "suspect," [and] stating "Debtors' insiders [the Schwabs] have a strong incentive to support the Cement Resources bid notwithstanding the fact that it may cause significant harm to unsecured creditors, and that their business judgment is hopelessly conflicted." Id. at *4 (quoting the record). The allegations in the first amended complaint in the Adversary Case — that the Schwabs' self-dealing with CR for their own personal gain breached their fiduciary duty and resulted in a reduction of the sale price and devaluation of the estate (see Doc. No. 20-4 ¶¶ 1-4) — are essentially the same as the objections made by the Committee during the Bankruptcy Case (see e.g. Doc. No. 20-45 ¶¶ 8-9, 27; Doc. No. 20-67 ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 20, 30, 31).
Applying Winget, the bankruptcy court concluded that, even though Pidcock and the Committee may not have known particular details of the negotiations between the Schwabs and CR, they were aware of the self-dealing nature of the negotiations "with ample time to, at a minimum, maintain its objection or make further inquiry. Consequently, the court cannot find affirmative concealment with regard to the Cement Resources deal." Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *8 ("The Winget case is instructive at this point because Winget argued he did not have all the facts to bring the claim during the bankruptcy case. The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument, finding `the claims Winget brings in the Complaint
The bankruptcy court came to the same conclusion regarding Oldcastle's negotiations with the Schwabs. Finding that the Oldcastle discussions may not have been as open as the CR negotiations, the bankruptcy court nevertheless concluded the record established that the Committee and Pidcock were aware of the existence and nature of the discussions between Oldcastle and the Schwabs. Id. The bankruptcy court cited the testimony of Pidcock as an example.
(Depo. of John B. Pidcock, pp. ECF 207-1, pp. 109:21-110:10.)
Id. at *8-9 (footnote added).
At the sale hearing, the bankruptcy court questioned Oldcastle's counsel regarding his client's negotiations with the Schwabs, to which counsel responded:
Id. at *9.
Based on this record, the bankruptcy court found that:
Id.
Pidcock contends that the facts in Winget are distinguishable from the Adversary Case, and the bankruptcy court erroneously applied Winget to conclude that the Schwabs' side agreement negotiations were not affirmatively concealed. The Court disagrees.
First, the creditor trustee argues that, in Winget, the plaintiff knew all of the material facts supporting his claim one year before the sale in the bankruptcy case, and filed an objection to the sale motion regarding the alleged wrongful conduct of the lenders. Winget later withdrew the objection, however, and the bankruptcy court approved the sale of the assets. (Brief at 436-38.) Unlike Winget, appellant contends the "material facts" regarding Oldcastle's negotiations
(Brief at 441 (footnotes added).)
It is true that the Committee's objections addressed CR, not Oldcastle, but that is because those objections were filed before Oldcastle's bid on May 21, 2010, in which Oldcastle disclosed its negotiations with the Schwabs:
(Doc. No. 20-71 at 5481.)
Oldcastle's bid shows that the Schwabs' discussions with Oldcastle were largely the same as their discussions with CR — that is, self-dealing in nature. The negotiations between Oldcastle and the Schwabs were also described at the sale hearing by Oldcastle's counsel, who stated that management and performance agreements had been submitted to the Schwabs, but they had not yet responded. Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *3-4 (quoting sale hearing transcript).
When questioned by the bankruptcy court at the sale hearing, debtors' counsel advised the bankruptcy court that, although he did not know specific details, counsel did know that the Schwabs had discussions with both CR and Oldcastle. Id. at *4. Counsel for the Committee, Aaron Hammer ("Hammer"), also attended the sale hearing on May 28, 2010, stating that the Committee members had been very involved throughout the entire process. Even in light of the Committee's knowledge of discussions between Oldcastle and the Schwabs concerning post-sale compensation and involvement in the businesses, Hammer advised the bankruptcy court at the sale hearing that:
(Doc. No. 20-47 at 4982-83.)
The kind of concealment of material facts that will bar the application of res judicata must be affirmative — "`mere silence or unwillingness to divulge wrongful activities is not sufficient.'" Browning, 283 F.3d at 770 (quoting Helmbright v. Martins Ferry, No. 94-4089, 1995 WL 445730, at *1 (6th Cir. July 26, 1995)). "`There must be some trick or contrivance intended to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry.'" Id. (quoting Pinney Dock and Transport Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1467 (6th Cir. 1988)). The concealment must be of the sort that would "deceive a reasonably diligent plaintiff[.]" In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 152 F.Supp.3d 968, 980 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (regarding affirmative concealment that must be shown to toll a limitations period) (citing Browning, 283 F.3d at 770).
There was no trick or contrivance that concealed Oldcastle's discussion with the Schwabs, or the nature of those discussions, which were essentially the same as the Schwabs' discussion with CR.
Pidcock's argument that this case is distinguishable from Winget because Winget knew of his adversary claims for a longer period of time before the bankruptcy sale than the claims were known in this case is irrelevant to the affirmative concealment analysis. The record in the Bankruptcy Case regarding the Schwabs' discussions with Oldcastle, the objections to the Schwabs' self-dealing in the Bankruptcy Case, and the similarity of those objections to the adversary claims, belies Pidcock's affirmative concealment argument. Winget, 537 F.3d at 580.
Thus, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in applying Winget to conclude that the Schwabs' insider deals were affirmatively concealed in the Bankruptcy Case.
Having determined that there was no affirmative concealment, the bankruptcy court turned to the issue of whether the adversary claims — that the debtors' assets were sold below their value because of the Schwabs' pre-sale self-dealing — should have been brought during the sale process. The bankruptcy court found this type of attack on the asset sale price similar to Winget, where the Sixth Circuit applied res judicata to bar Winget's claims, finding: "`As Winget's claims attack the Defendants' pre-bankruptcy actions and allege that the Defendants deliberately devalued the assets of Deluxe prior to its bankruptcy proceeding and subsequent sale, those claims would have had a direct effect on the assets in the bankruptcy proceeding.'" Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *10 (quoting Winget, 537 F.3d at 579).
The bankruptcy court likened Pidcock's claims to those in Winget, because
Id.
Pidcock contends that the bankruptcy court erroneously compared his claims to Winget because, unlike Winget, he does not seek to upset the results of the bankruptcy asset sale, and valuation of the assets sold in bankruptcy are not required to calculate damages resulting from the Schwabs' breach of fiduciary duty. (Brief at 443.) As Pidcock describes it:
(Brief at 444 (emphasis added).)
While Pidcock may not seek to upset the bankruptcy sale, his characterization of what is necessary to calculate damages requires a valuation of what the assets would have sold for if the Scwhabs had not allegedly breached their fiduciary duty by self-dealing. Pidcock claims that CR and Oldcastle may have paid more were it not for the insider deals, but even if this were the case, how much more is unknown and theoretical. If Pidcock were to prove his breach of fiduciary duty claims, the Court would be required to determine if CR and Oldcastle would have paid more for debtors' assets absent the insider deals with the Schwabs, and how much more. This determination would require a revaluation of debtors' assets. Had those claims been raised during the sale process, the bankruptcy court could have determined at that time whether the insider deals were improper and if, and how, those deals impacted the sale price and the value of the assets to the estate.
Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in applying Winget to conclude that the third element of res judicata is satisfied in this case.
Pidcock also argues that the third prong of the res judicata analysis cannot be satisfied because if the sale was delayed to pursue the breach of fiduciary duty claims, the debtors' assets may have decreased in value as a result. Thus, Pidcock contends, the Committee did not have a full and fair opportunity to pursue those claims during the narrow time window of the sale process, further distinguishing this case from Winget where Winget was aware of his adversary claims one year before the sale. Cisneros v. Randall, No. 3:06-0190, 2006 WL 2037561, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. July 17, 2006) ("Although mostly invoked in the context of collateral estoppel, courts do recognize an exception to the application of res judicata[] under federal common law. As a matter of federal law, res judicata principles do not apply where the party against whom an earlier decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim or issue decided by the first court.") (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fellowship of Christ Church v. Thorburn, 758 F.2d 1140, 1144 (6th Cir. 1985)); Abbott v. Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 331 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fellowship of Christ Church, 758 F.2d at 1144).
The bankruptcy court found that, with the information available during the sale process regarding the Schwabs' insider deals, there was "ample time to, at a minimum, maintain its objection or make further inquiry." Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *8. Pidcock disagrees, arguing that bankruptcy is unlike traditional litigation and the sale process took place over a short, 60-day time period while the parties were simultaneously involved in numerous other separate matters related to the bankruptcy. According to Pidcock, when the Committee learned of the insider discussions between Oldcastle and the Schwabs several days before the auction and sale hearing, "the Committee had only two options:
But, as Pidcock appears to concede, there were mechanisms available for the Committee to raise its claims concerning breach of fiduciary duty during the bankruptcy sale proceedings. The Committee raised objections concerning the Schwabs' insider deals with CR during the sale process, but chose not to do so with respect to its claims regarding Oldcastle.
The Committee's opinion that pursuing claims regarding the Schwabs' insider deals with Oldcastle during the sale process would have had a negative impact on the value of the estate may, or may not, have proven true. (See Opp'n at 5962 ("While the banks indicated an initial unwillingness to fund the companies after May, faced with the potential of an additional, significant monetary benefit which, according to Pidcock would have been exposed through investigation, the banks may have relented.").) The Committee balanced the risks and benefits as it saw them and chose not to object to the sale to Oldcastle or make further inquiry during the sale process. The Committee's choice not to assert those claims during the sale process, however, does not mean that it could not do so. See Fellowship of Christ Church, 758 F.2d at 1144 ("Appellate review of Judge Thorburn's dissolution order was not full and fair, [plaintiffs] contend, because it offered no opportunity to enter material evidence to factually rebut the circuit court order. The state court defendants, however, freely chose not to move for a new trial at which they could have submitted evidence."); Matter of AFY, Inc., No. AP 14-4060, 2016 WL 869786, at *6 (Bankr. D. Neb. Mar. 7, 2016) (owner's choice not to hire separate counsel for corporation does not constitute lack of full and fair opportunity to litigate claim objections).
Thus, the Court concludes that appellant's argument that element three of res judicata is not satisfied because there was not a full and fair opportunity to pursue the breach of fiduciary duty claims is without merit.
Winget, 537 F.3d at 580 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Winget argued that his adversary claims did not arise out of the same transaction or operative facts as the bankruptcy proceeding because the sale order did not mention the guaranty documents upon which Winget's claims were based. Pidcock makes a similar argument, contending that his claims are completely different and separate from the facts necessary for approval of the sale order because, in the sale order, "there is no mention of Appellees individually, any of their negotiations with bidders, or their continuing role post sale." (Brief at 460.) But, as the Sixth Circuit ruled in Winget, the Court is not required
Winget, 537 F.3d at 581.
The bankruptcy court found that the fourth element of res judicata analysis was satisfied because Pidcock's claims pertain not just to the sale order, but to the larger transactions and facts that were known and raised by Pidcock and the Committee during the Bankruptcy Case:
Schwab, 2016 WL 197570, at *10.
In so finding, the bankruptcy court distinguished another adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Case, Goddard, where res judicata did not bar that proceeding. Pidcock contends that this case is like Goddard. Although the Schwbs' alleged breach of fiduciary duty occurred and was known during the sale process, Pidcock maintains that the facts necessary to determine those claims are "completely different and separate from the facts necessary for approval of the sale" and thus, transactionally distinct from the bankruptcy sale. (Brief at 460.) The Court disagrees.
The plaintiff in the Goddard proceeding alleged that the debtors' restructuring officer, Laurence Goddard, breached his fiduciary duty by helping the Schwabs negotiate their insider deals with CR and Oldcastle. Goddard argued that Pidcock's claims were barred by res judicata because those claims "necessarily impugn[ed] the good faith finding of the sale[.]" Goddard, 2014 WL 5325930, at *11. The bankruptcy court declined to apply the doctrine of res judicata in Goddard, however, finding (unlike this adversary proceeding) that the second element of res judicata was not satisfied. Id. at *12-13. The bankruptcy court also concluded in Goddard that the third prong of res judicata was not satisfied because (unlike this adversary proceeding) affirmative concealment prevented the Committee from asserting its breach of fiduciary claims during the sale process.
Id. at *11.
The bankruptcy court did not err in distinguishing the Goddard proceeding from this proceeding. Here, not only were Pidcock and the Committee aware of the Schwabs' insider deals before the sale of debtors' assets, the Committee asserted objections regarding the impact of those deals on the valuation of debtors' assets during the sale process. Pidcock's claims in this case for breach of fiduciary duty due to self-dealing by the Schwabs are based on the same transactions and facts that were known in the Bankruptcy Case. Thus, there is an identity of claims between the sale proceedings and the instant litigation, and the fourth element of res judicata is satisfied. Winget, 537 F.3d at 581.
With respect to the adversary claim that the Schwabs breached their fiduciary duty by failing to obtain a $3 million dollar insurance refund, this claim is also barred by res judicata. In its objection to debtors' motion for post-petition financing, the Committee asserted that the Schwabs were breaching their fiduciary obligations by refusing to consummate the requirements for the insurance refund. (See e.g. Doc. No. 20-66 ¶¶ 17-39.) The Schwabs' failure to obtain the insurance refund was not concealed. Pidcock and the Committee were aware during the Bankruptcy Case of this alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and the potential adverse effect on the estate, and should have brought those claims at that time. Thus, for the same reasons that Pidcock's claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Schwabs' insider deals with CR and Oldcastle are barred by res judicata, the claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the insurance refund is also barred.
Pidcock posits that the law of the Sixth Circuit is too rigid in its application of res judicata in bankruptcy cases, and should adopt the more flexible standards of the Third Circuit and Eleventh Circuit, which limit the application of res judicata after entry of a sale order to claims that were actually litigated or that were essential to the sale process. (Brief at 464-65.) Pidcock argues that this more flexible standard would better further the policies in bankruptcy cases and not require parties to choose between slowing down the bankruptcy process to pursue claims during those proceedings, or be barred from doing so later, by the Sixth Circuit's strict application of res judicata standards to bankruptcy.
The Sixth Circuit, however, has specifically considered, and rejected, the Third and Eleventh Circuit cases that Pidcock
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err in applying Sixth Circuit law to this case.
The bankruptcy court's order denying the creditor trustees' motion to strike defendant/appellee's affirmative defenses is an interlocutory order. In re Midway Motor Sales, Inc., 2009 WL 1940719, at *1 (citations omitted). This interlocutory order, however, merges with the bankruptcy court's final order granting summary judgment in this case and may be appealed by filing a timely notice of appeal of the final judgment. See id. at *2.
"Bankruptcy court orders striking affirmative defenses and dismissing cross-claims, and disapproving a proposed settlement or compromise are reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the court relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Whether the bankruptcy court's discretionary decision is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the law is a legal question that is reviewed de novo. Regardless, the decision of the bankruptcy court can be affirmed if it is correct for any reason, including a reason not considered by that court." In re Anderson, 377 B.R. 865, 868 (6th Cir. BAP 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770, 130 S.Ct. 2652, 177 L.Ed.2d 234 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
After considering the parties' brief and entertaining oral argument on Pidcock's motion to strike the Schwabs' affirmative defenses, the bankruptcy court found that "there is no controlling authority or requirement in the Sixth Circuit or in the Ohio District Courts that the pleading standards set forth in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544[, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929] (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662[, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868] (2009) apply to affirmative defenses." (Order at 4228.) The bankruptcy court therefore declined to apply such pleading standards to affirmative defenses and denied Pidcock's motion to strike. (Id.) On appeal, Pidcock acknowledges that there is no clear answer because the Sixth Circuit has not yet ruled on this issue, but urges this Court to do so on appeal because some Ohio district courts have applied the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative defenses. (Brief at 469.)
The Sixth Circuit has not yet addressed this issue. Depositors Ins. Co. v. Estate of Ryan, 637 Fed.Appx. 864, 869 (6th Cir.
This Court has previously held that "`[a]n affirmative defense may be pleaded in general terms and will be held to be sufficient ... as long as it gives plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defense.'" Chiancone v. City of Akron, No. 5:11CV337, 2011 WL 4436587, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2011) (quoting Lawrence, 182 Fed.Appx. at 456); see also Jam Tire, Inc. v. Harbin, No. 3:14-cv-00489, 2014 WL 4388286, at *2-3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2014) (rejecting a heightened pleading standard for affirmative defenses, and noting a "majority trend" that "cut[s] against the proposition"); Sodexo Mgmt., Inc. v. Benton Harbor Area Sch. Dist., No. 1:15-CV-878, 2016 WL 845338, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2016) (concluding that the "fair notice" standard remains intact in the Sixth Circuit with respect to affirmative defenses, and declining to apply the Twombly/Iqbal standard) (citing among other authority Montgomery); Farivar v. Lawson, No. 3:14-CV-76-TAV-HBG, 2017 WL 149970, at *6 n.1 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 13, 2017) (following Lawrence and Montgomery in declining to apply heightened pleading standard to affirmative defenses).
The Court acknowledges that some Ohio district courts have concluded that the Twombly/Iqbal heightened pleading standard applies to affirmative defenses. See e.g. HCRI TRS Acquirer, LLC v. Iwer, 708 F.Supp.2d 687, 691 (N.D. Ohio 2010). The majority of courts considering this issue, however, have concluded to the contrary. Vary v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:16-CV-00037, 2016 WL 3085311, at *1 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2016) ("This Court follows the majority approach in finding that the Iqbal and Twombly pleading requirements do not apply to affirmative defenses.").
Accordingly, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying Pidcock's motion to strike the Schwabs' affirmative defenses.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff/appellant's appeal is denied. The bankruptcy court's order (and accompanying memorandum of decision) granting defendants/appellees' motion for summary judgment, and order denying plaintiff/appellant's motion to strike defendants/appellees' affirmative defenses, are AFFIRMED.
