Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01184/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01184-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Perez and Elizabeth Perez, on

behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

First American Title Insurance

Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1184-PHX-DGC

 ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike Defendant First American Title Insurance

Company’s amended answer and affirmative defenses. Dkt. #158. Defendant opposes the

motion (Dkt. #159) and has filed a motion to modify the Court’s second case management

order and for leave to file a second amended answer so that it may resolve concerns raised

in Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. Dkt. #161. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to amend

except to the extent it seeks to bifurcate affirmative defenses between those asserted against

the named plaintiffs and those asserted against class members. Dkt. #163.

The Court will grant the motion to modify the second case management order and for

leave to file a second amended answer. Dkt. #161. Because the second amended answer

provides more factual support for affirmative defenses and deletes some clearly insufficient

defenses, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. Dkt. #158. Further rulings on the

affirmative defenses are not needed at this stage of the litigation.

The Court will permit the amended order to be filed as currently drafted. The Court

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 166 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court notes that the two cases cited by Plaintiffs – Cooper v. Southern Co., 390

F.3d 695, 713 (11th Cir. 2004) and In re HealthSouth Corp. Secs. Litigation, Nos. CV-03-

BE-1500-S, CV-03-BE-1501-S, CV-03-BE-1502-S, 2009 WL 3152226, *9 (N.D. Ala. Sept.

30, 2009) – do not address the pleading of affirmative defenses

- 2 -

recognizes that the named plaintiffs represent the class and that defenses must be asserted

against them, and not against class members individually, on all class issues. The Court

cannot determine at this point, however, whether litigation of individual class member issues

will be required after all class issues have been resolved, and therefore will not preclude

Defendant from bifurcating their affirmative defenses against the class members.1

 This

decision portends no departure from the class litigation procedures of Rule 23.

The Court notes that the more than 50 pages of briefing on these issues have largely

been an exercise in shadow boxing. The applicability and sufficiency of affirmative defenses

will be far more relevant at the summary judgment and trial stages of this case.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Dkt. #158) is denied as moot.

2. Defendant’s motion to modify the second case management order and for

leave to file a second amended answer and affirmative defenses (Dkt. #161)

is granted.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 166 Filed 02/02/10 Page 2 of 2