Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00885/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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 - 10CV885

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV885-LAB (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES 

vs.

ENEDINA SOTO, individually and d/b/a

VALLARTA BAR,

Defendants.

J&J Sports owned the pay-per-view rights for a boxing match between Manny

Pacquiao and Ricky Hatton that was televised on May 2, 2009. It alleges that Defendants

showed this match without paying for it in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 47

U.S.C. 605, et. seq., the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of

1992, 47 U.S.C. 553, et seq., and the California Business and Professions Code Section

17200. The Defendants deny these allegations and, in addition, raise seventeen affirmative

defenses. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative

Defenses. J&J Sports also seeks sanctions.

I. Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

A. Legal Standard

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides that the Court “may strike

from a pleading an insufficient defense of any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Affirmative defenses “deny plaintiff’s right to

recover, even if the allegations of the complaint are true.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. V. Main

Hurdman, 655 F.Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Cal. 1987). A statement that denies plaintiff’s prima

facie case is not an affirmative defense but rather a denial of liability in the first instance.

Case 3:10-cv-00885-LAB-CAB Document 19 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 10CV885

Properly pleaded affirmative defenses must “give plaintiff fair notice of the defense.”

Wyshak v. City National Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9 Cir. 1979). Each of Defendants’ th

affirmative defenses is either unnecessary because it duplicates the Defendants’ general

denials or insufficient because it does not place J&J Sports on notice about the facts

supporting the defense.

B. Analysis

Defendants first assert that “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of

limitations.” (Answer at 3.) The statute of limitations for claims arising under 47 U.S.C. §

605 is one year. DirectTV v. Webb, 545 F.3d 837, 847-48 (9 Cir. 2008). The statute of th

limitations for claims under 47 U.S.C. § 553 is either two or three years. Compare Nat’l

Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Time Warner Ent. Co., 255 F.Supp.2d 307, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

(setting a three-year statute of limitations) with DirectTV v. Johnson, No. 03-C-8504, 2004

WL 2011392 at *3 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 3, 2004) (setting a two-year statute of limitations). The

statute of limitations for J&J Sports’ conversion claim is three years, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

338(c), and the statute of limitations for violations of the California Business and Professions

Code is four years. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208. Because J&J Sports filed the

complaint within one year of the alleged harm, all claims are timely. Thus, Defendants’ first

defense is stricken without leave to amend. 

Defendants’ second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth defenses each merely

deny part of J&J Sports’ prima facie case. None are affirmative defenses, and are therefore

stricken without leave to amend. Defendants’ answer adequately preserves any arguments

they seek to make regarding the prima facie case. 

In the sixth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth defenses, Defendants allege that J&J

Sports’ conduct somehow justified the Defendants’ actions. Defendants do not specify what

J&J Sports did or did not do and it is difficult to imagine what the questionable conduct could

be. Nonetheless, Defendants may possibly show that J&J Sports made some promise or

acted in some way that permits Defendants to avoid or lessen liability. Thus, the sixth, ninth,

tenth, eleventh, and twelfth defenses are stricken with leave to amend. The Court cautions

Case 3:10-cv-00885-LAB-CAB Document 19 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 10CV885

Defendants that any amended answer must put forth sufficient legal defenses supported by

specific factual allegations. Defendants’ current pleadings fail to place J&J Sports on notice

about the affirmative defenses at issue and Defendants should not waste the Court’s or

Plaintiff’s time responding to further bare-bones allegations.

The thirteenth defense, regarding the Statute of Frauds, is stricken without leave to

amend because the Plaintiff has not alleged a contract violation. Similarly, the fourteenth

defense is stricken without leave to amend because J&J Sports had no duty to mitigate

damages allegedly caused by Defendants’ unlicensed showing of a boxing match. J&J

Sports does not allege a continuing harm and Defendants do not state how J&J Sports could

mitigate the harm of Defendants’ alleged conduct. 

The fifteenth defense is also stricken without leave to amend. Defendants assert that

a third-party or J&J Sports caused the alleged damages and damages “should be

apportioned according to their respective degrees of fault.” (Answer at 5.) This recites the

standard for comparative fault, which is an affirmative defense in tort actions. Restatement

(Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 7 (“Plaintiff’s negligence . . . that is a legal cause

of an indivisible injury to the plaintiff reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to the share

of responsibility the factfinder assigns to the plaintiff. . . .”). J&J Sports has not alleged a

negligence violation, thus the comparative fault affirmative defense is inapplicable. 

The sixteenth defense merely seeks to “reserve all defense to be set forth in amended

pleadings . . . pending investigation and discovery.” (Answer at 5.) The Court understands

the Defendants’ desire to preserve all possible arguments, but this desire does not amount

to a defense. The mere fact that Defendant wishes to reserve all defenses does not excuse

Defendant from liability. Thus, the sixteenth defense is stricken without leave to amend.

Finally, the seventeenth defense is stricken without leave to amend. A mistake of law

does not excuse a person from civil liability. Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer &

Ulrich LPA, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1611 (2010) (citing Barlow v. U.S., 32 U.S. 404, 433 (1833)).

Thus, even if Defendants can show they did not know they were violating the law, their

liability is not excused.

Case 3:10-cv-00885-LAB-CAB Document 19 Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 10CV885

II. Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

J&J Sports seeks sanctions against Defendants for asserting “wholly inappropriate,

immaterial, and impertinent affirmative defenses.” (Motion to Strike at 14.) The Court may

impose sanctions against anyone “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case

unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court declines to impose sanctions

and reminds the parties that the pleadings stage of litigation is designed to place all parties

on notice and to focus the issues. The Defendants’ filing may have contained some

irrelevant defenses, but it was not vexatious and does not warrant sanctions. Of course, the

Court expects that any future amended answer will contain more focused defenses and

more specific facts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00885-LAB-CAB Document 19 Filed 09/28/10 Page 4 of 4