CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has moved to strike all allegations labelled as affirmative defenses within Defendant's answer, arguing "the grounds that Defendants' Affirmative Defenses are insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable authority." (
Under Rule 12(f) "the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). While the court enjoys "liberal discretion" in determining whether to strike a party's pleadings, doing so is an "extreme measure" and thus motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are "infrequently granted."
The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to "minimize delay, prejudice, and confusion."
When considering motions to strike, the court looks past the parties' labels and evaluates the actual allegations within the pleading. As applied to answers, defenses that do not negate elements of a claim or defenses asserting that no viable claim has been alleged, should generally not be designated as an "affirmative defense." "It does not follow, however, that the defense must be stricken due to its mistaken designation. On the contrary, such errors are routinely disregarded."
5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1269 (3d ed. 2011). Despite an erroneous "affirmative defense" label, defenses which notify plaintiff that it will be put to its proof are not insufficient as a matter of law and will not be stricken.
Finally, the plausibility pleading requirements applicable to Plaintiff's claims under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as espoused by
Plaintiff moved to strike all allegations raised in Defendant's Answer under the title "
Defendant alleges Plaintiff cannot prove a claim for enhanced damages or for violating any cable or satellite programming license or authorization, (paragraphs 2 and 6). These defenses challenge whether plaintiff can prove an element of Plaintiff's claim, and they are therefore not affirmative defenses. Defendant was not required to identify any specific elements of Plaintiff's claim that Defendant intends to challenge in its answer. But by doing so, Plaintiff is not prejudiced. Instead, it is better apprised of primary issues in dispute. Paragraphs 2 and 6 will not be stricken merely because they were incorrectly identified as affirmative defenses.
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the affirmatives defenses allege Plaintiff's statutory penalty demands are excessive under the Due Process Clause, its claims are barred by the doctrine of acquiescence and the statute of limitations, and Plaintiff's entitlement to relief, if any, is limited due to payment and Plaintiff's failure to mitigate. As to each of these allegations, Defendant is stating that even if Plaintiff proves the elements of its claims, it is not entitled to recover all or a portion of the relief requested. By raising these allegations in the answer, Defendant has affirmatively stated an avoidance or affirmative defense to Plaintiff's claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). While Plaintiff's brief also argues the merits of Defendant's affirmative defenses, these arguments are not properly raised on a motion to strike. They will not be addressed in this order.
Finally, paragraph 9 states Defendant reserves the right to raise additional defenses supported by the discovery. This allegation appears limitless, but in reality, this court will not permit a party to proceed on allegations that are not specifically raised by the deadline set for moving to amend pleadings. That deadline will be set in the final progression order, which will be entered after the court rules on Defendant's anticipated motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations affirmative defense. As such, paragraph 9 will not be stricken.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike, (