Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02663/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02663-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

14 WILLIE HENRY WILLIAMS a/k/a

WILLIAM HENRY WILLIAM, et

15 al.,

16 Defendants.

17

No. 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE

18 Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions (“Plaintiff”) moves to strike

19 all eight affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant

20 International Wealth Enterprises, Inc. doing business as The

21 Liaisons Lounge and Restaurant (“IWE” or “Defendant”).1 Mot. to

22 Strike, ECF No. 35. IWE did not file an opposition to the

23 motion, but IWE’s counsel submitted a declaration indicating his

24 willingness to strike four of IWE’s affirmative defenses from its

25 answer. Berniker Decl. at 2, ECF No. 37.

26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was

28 scheduled for August 23, 2016.

1

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 6
1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2 Plaintiff allegedly owned the exclusive nationwide

3 commercial distribution rights to Ultimate Fighting Championship

4 167: Georges St-Pierre v. Johny Hendricks (“the Program”),

5 telecast nationwide on November 16, 2013. Compl. ¶ 16, ECF No.

6 1. Plaintiff alleges that IWE “did unlawfully intercept,

7 receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program at

8 the time of its transmission.” Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff filed

9 this lawsuit against IWE and Willie Henry Williams (an alleged

10 “officer of [IWE]”) alleging conversion, violations of 47 U.S.C.

11 §§ 605 and 553, and violation of California Business and

12 Professions Code §§ 17200-17210. Compl. at 4-8.

13 IWE answered Plaintiff’s complaint, asserting eight

14 affirmative defenses. Answer ¶¶ 5-12, ECF No. 33. In response

15 to Plaintiff’s motion to strike, IWE’s counsel submitted a

16 declaration indicating his willingness to strike IWE’s third,

17 fourth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses. Berniker Decl.

18 at 2. These four affirmative defenses are therefore stricken

19 without leave to amend. Only IWE’s first, second, fifth, and

20 eighth (erroneously labeled in IWE’s answer as the eleventh)

21 affirmative defense remain at issue.

22

23 II. OPINION

24 A. Legal Standard

25 A motion to strike is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of

26 Civil Procedure 12(f).

27 Rule 12(f) provides . . . that the Court may 

order stricken from any pleading any

28 insufficient defense or any redundant,

2

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 6
1 immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 

matter. Motions to strike are disfavored and

2 infrequently granted. A motion to strike 

should not be granted unless it is clear

3 that the matter to be stricken could have no 

possible bearing on the subject matter of

4 the litigation.

5 Bassett v. Ruggles, No. CV-F-09-528-OWW-SMS, 2009 WL

6 2982895, at *24 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (internal

7 citations omitted). “Affirmative defenses plead matters

8 extraneous to the plaintiff's prima facie case, which deny

9 plaintiff's right to recover, even if the allegations of

10 the complaint are true.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main

11 Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Cal. 1987). In the

12 Ninth Circuit, a defendant need only plead an affirmative

13 defense in “general terms.” Staggs v. Doctor's Hosp. of

14 Manteca, No. 2:11-CV-00414-MCE-KJN, 2016 WL 3027742, at *1

15 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (quoting Kohler v. Flava Enters.,

16 Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015)). Accordingly,

17 “the ‘fair notice’ standard, and not the heightened

18 pleading standard identified by Twombly and Iqbal [applies]

19 to motions to strike affirmative defenses.” Staggs, 2016

20 WL 3027742, at *1.

21 B. Analysis

22 1. First Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

23 Defendant’s first affirmative defense is that “[a]ll claims

24 for damages are barred by the statute of limitations.” Answer

25 ¶ 5. The statute of limitations is one year for violations of

26 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 and 553. J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Angulo,

27 No. 2:14-CV-02666-KJM-AC, 2015 WL 5020725, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug.

28 21, 2015). The statute of limitations is three years for

3

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 6
1 conversion, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 338(c), and four years for

2 claims under the California Business and Professions Code, Cal.

3 Bus. & Profs. Code § 17208.

4 In evaluating a motion to strike, a court must treat facts

5 in the complaint as true. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alvarado,

6 No. 1:10-CV-00907-LJO, 2011 WL 201466, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19,

7 2011). If a defendant offers no factual assertion that the

8 program in question was televised on a day other than that

9 alleged by the plaintiff, a court is “obligated to assume the

10 broadcasting date is accurate.” Angulo, 2015 WL 5020725, at *4.

11 Plaintiff alleges that the Program was televised at IWE’s

12 Liaisons Lounge on November 16, 2013, and IWE provides no

13 factual assertions to the contrary. Plaintiff filed the

14 complaint on November 14, 2014, within each of the applicable

15 statues of limitations. IWE’s first affirmative defense is thus

16 stricken with leave to amend.

17 2. Second Affirmative Defense: Failure to State a

18 Claim

19 Defendant states in its second affirmative defense that

20 Plaintiff’s complaint “in its entirety and through each

21 separately stated cause of action, fails to state facts

22 sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action.” Answer ¶ 6.

23 “Failure to state a claim is a defect in the plaintiff's

24 claim[,] . . . [not] an affirmative defense.” J & J Sports

25 Prods., Inc. v. Romero, No. 1:11-CV-1880-AWI-BAM, 2012 WL

26 2317566, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) (internal citations and

27 quotation marks omitted). Defendant's second affirmative

28 defense is therefore stricken without leave to amend.

4

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 4 of 6
1 3. Fifth Affirmative Defense: Standing

2 Defendant asserts that “Plaintiff lacks standing to bring

3 suit.” Answer ¶ 9. “Standing has been considered a proper

4 affirmative defense by many courts.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.

5 v. Dorsett, No. 12-CV-1715-JAM-EFB, 2013 WL 1339231, at *5 (E.D.

6 Cal. Apr. 3, 2013).

7 Plaintiff, citing to J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v.

8 Nguyen, 2014 WL 60014, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2014), argues

9 that IWE’s standing affirmative defense is “insufficient as a

10 matter of law.” Mot. to Strike at 9. The Nguyen court,

11 however, analyzed standing in the context of the defendant’s

12 motion to dismiss, not in the context of the plaintiff’s motion

13 to strike affirmative defenses. Nguyen is therefore

14 inapplicable here. Under notice-pleading standards, IWE’s fifth

15 affirmative defense is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to strike

16 IWE’s fifth affirmative defense for lack of standing is DENIED.

17 4. Eighth Affirmative Defense: Lack of Control

18 IWE’s last affirmative defense is that it “lacks control to

19 be held responsible for allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.”

20 Answer ¶ 12. Though affirmative defenses need only be described

21 in “general terms,” this affirmative defense fails. IWE must at

22 least give Plaintiff fair notice of the defense being asserted.

23 Bd. of Trs. of IBEW Local Union No. 100 Pension Tr. Fund v.

24 Fresno's Best Indus. Elec., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01545-AWI, 2014 WL

25 1245800, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2014). Here, IWE fails to

26 indicate what or who it lacks control over. IWE’s eighth

27 affirmative defense does not give Plaintiff fair notice of what

28 defense is being asserted, and the Court therefore strikes the

5

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 5 of 6
1 eighth affirmative defense with leave to amend.

2

3 III. ORDER

4 The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant’s second, third, fourth,

5 sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses without leave to amend.

6 The Court STRIKES IWE’s first and eighth affirmative defenses

7 with leave to amend. The Court declines to strike Defendant’s

8 fifth affirmative defense.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: September 16, 2016

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC Document 40 Filed 09/19/16 Page 6 of 6