Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01567/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01567-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J & J Sports Productions, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Araik Khachatrian, individually and

d/b/a 27th Avenue Bar & Grill; Arik

Company, LLC, an unknown business

entity d/b/a 27th Avenue Bar & Grill,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1567-GMS-PHX

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defense,

(Doc. 22), filed by Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. For the following reasons, the

Court denies the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that on July 26, 2008, Defendants unlawfully

transmitted “The Battle”: Miguel Cotto v. Antonio Margarito, WBA Welterweight

Championship Fight Program (“Program”), (Doc. 1, ¶ 9), at 27th Avenue Bar & Grill in

Phoenix, Arizona. (Id. at ¶ 6). As such, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated 47 U.S.C.

§§ 605, 553, (Doc. 1, ¶ 1), and a common law prohibition against tortious conversion. (Id.

at ¶ 23).

Defendants filed an Answer, which posited one affirmative defense: “The damages

alleged by the Plaintiff were not caused by the defendants. These allegations made by the

Case 2:10-cv-01567-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/23/11 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

Plaintiff’s argument that the Court should apply the Twombly standard to Defendants’

affirmative defense is misplaced. In Ameristar Fence Products, Inc. v. Phoenix Fence Co.,

this Court explicitly stated that the Twombly standard does not apply to affirmative defenses

but rather only applies to Rule 8(a). 2010 WL 2803907, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2010).

Moreover, the language in Rule 8(a) requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing the pleader is entitled to relief” is not found in Rule 8(c)(1). FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2);

Ameristar, 2010 WL 2803907, at *1. The Court additionally stated that it “will leave any

extension of Twombly to the Supreme Court or this Circuit.” Ameristar, 2010 WL 2803907,

at *1.

- 2 -

plaintiff carry no merit and are non-existent.” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to

Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defense. (Doc. 22). 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the “court may strike from a

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.” FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f). “Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor, but are

proper when a defense is insufficient as a matter of law.” Torres v. Goddard, 2007 WL

4287812, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 3, 2007). Courts must view the challenged affirmative

defense in a “light more favorable to the pleader.” First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v.

Phillips, 2008 WL 906698, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2008) (citations omitted). This is

especially so for pro se pleadings, “which [courts] hold to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

Nonetheless, each defense must be pled in such a way that the opposing party has fair notice

of the defense. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010);

Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir.1979).

The standard for pleading affirmative defenses comes from Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(c)(1), which states: “[i]n responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively

state any avoidance or affirmative defense.”1

 FED.R.CIV.P. 8(c)(1). In light of our obligation

to construe pro se pleadings liberally, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfied the

8(c)(1) standard for pleading affirmative defenses. The Court construes Defendants’

affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s allegations “carry no merit and are non-existent” as akin

Case 2:10-cv-01567-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/23/11 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 -

to pleading failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court

interprets Defendants’ affirmative defense as a Rule 12(b)(6) defense, of which Plaintiff has

fair notice, and will not strike it.

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Sanctions under § 1927

must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith, which “is present when an attorney

knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or argues a meritorious claim for the

purpose of harassing an opponent.” In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436

(9th Cir. 1996). The Court finds no subjective bad faith on the part of Defendants here, and

sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

Because the Court is obligated to construe pro se pleadings in a liberal fashion,

Defendants’ affirmative defense is interpreted as Rule 12(b)(6) defense. Thus, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Strike is denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’

Affirmative Defense, (Doc. 22), is DENIED.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01567-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/23/11 Page 3 of 3