Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02406/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02406-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAYMES BUTLER, et al.,

NO. CIV. 07-2406 WBS EFB

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs, over three hundred former and current

employees of defendant City of Sacramento, brought this action

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207-219. 

Plaintiffs allege defendant improperly calculated plaintiffs’

“regular rate” of pay in determining overtime compensation and

failed to provide retroactive overtime compensation to

plaintiffs. (First. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-61.) 

In its Answer to plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint,

defendant asserts twenty affirmative defenses. (Answer to First

Case 2:07-cv-02406-WBS-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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 “Upon a motion made by a party . . . 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). A “motion to strike is appropriate to address

requested relief . . . which is not recoverable as a matter of

law.” Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 172 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

2

Am. Compl. 8-10.) Plaintiffs now move to strike1 nine of

defendant’s affirmative defenses: 1) “Plaintiffs are not

representative of a well defined class of similarly situated

people and/or lack standing to prosecute this lawsuit”; 2)

“Plaintiffs did not timely or properly serve or file notice of

consent to be included in the instant suit”; 3) sovereign

immunity; 4) laches; 5) after-acquired evidence doctrine; 6)

“Defendant properly calculated Plaintiffs’ ‘regular rate’ of pay

based upon information known to Defendant at the time such

payments were disbursed”; 7) immunity from punitive damages; 8)

immunity pursuant to “state and federal statutory and common

law”; and 9) a reservation of rights to rely on any additional

affirmative defenses supported by the facts. (Answer to First

Am. Compl. 8-10; see also id. (the nine affirmative defenses are

respectively numbered as defendant’s third, fourth, fifth,

seventh, ninth, twelfth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twentieth

affirmative defenses).) 

Because defendant has filed a statement of nonopposition to plaintiffs’ motion based on “its concessions and/or

[the] limitations on the scope of the allegations in this

action,” the court will order those nine affirmative defenses

stricken.

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-02406-WBS-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

strike defendant’s third, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, twelfth,

seventeenth, nineteenth, and twentieth affirmative defenses be,

and the same is, GRANTED. 

DATED: March 14, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-02406-WBS-EFB Document 21 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3