Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES—No. C-06-03299 RMW

CAR

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 10/31/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

No. C-06-03299 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

[Re Docket Nos. 7, 9, 12, 19]

Plaintiff Jamar Evans demurs and moves to strike the thirty-two affirmative defenses set

forth in the answer of defendant County of Santa Clara Probation Department. The matter is

deemed submitted on the papers; no hearing will be held. 

In its answer, defendant pleads thirty-two affirmative defenses: (1) failure to state a claim;

(2) comparative fault; (3) comparative fault of third person; (4) lack of actual causation; (5) lack of

proximate causation; (6) discretionary immunity; (7) statute of limitations; (8) consent; (9) failure to

mitigate; (10) estoppel; (11) waiver; (12) frivolous vexation; (13) unclean hands; (14) governmental

immunity to punitive damages; (15) collateral benefits; (16) res judicata and collateral estoppel; (17)

acts in good faith; (18) lack of malice, willfulness or fraud; (19) immunity for acts within the scope

of employment; (20) lack of jurisdiction; (21) no policy, custom or practice; (22) privileged or

justified conduct; (23) failure to prosecute; (24) laches; (25) assumption of risk; (26) damages are

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 22 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES—No. C-06-03299 RMW

CAR 2

speculative; (27) forcefully resisting arrest; (28) defendant had probable cause to detain plaintiff;

(29) common-law police immunity; (30) the force used was necessary to prevent injury or escape;

(31) use of force was privileged; and (32) failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Most of these purported affirmative defenses are not affirmative defenses. The ones that

might be, (2), (3), (6), (7), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), (19), (22), (24), (25), (28), (29), (30), (31) and

(32), appear in most cases to have no application to this action. The ones that may apply are so

devoid of any facts that they give no effective notice to plaintiff of the basis for the affirmative

defenses. This type of shotgun pleading is unacceptable. All affirmative defenses are stricken. 

Defendant is given twenty days' leave to file an amended answer properly asserting any applicable

affirmative defense.

DATED: 10/31/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 22 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES—No. C-06-03299 RMW

CAR 3

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Plaintiff:

Jamar Evans

P.O. Box 25

Atwater, CA 95301

Counsel for Defendant:

Neysa A. Fligor

Office of the County Counsel

70 West Hedding, East Wing, Ninth Floor

San Jose, California 95110–1770

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 22 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3