Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01104/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01104-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 )

)

CHRISTOPHER BLACK, et al., )

) 2:06-cv-1104-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

CITY OF MARYSVILLE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

Plaintiffs move to strike Defendant’s third, sixth, ninth,

tenth, and twelfth affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant’s

Answer. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 1.) Defendant did not file an

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to this motion as Local

Rule 78-230(c) requires.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are or were employed by Defendant within the past

three years. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 2.) Plaintiffs allege

Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked in

violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

Case 2:06-cv-01104-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 09/21/06 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

(“FLSA”). (Complaint ¶¶ 30-42.) Defendant filed an Answer asserting

thirteen affirmative defenses. (Answer ¶¶ 1-13.) Plaintiffs contend

five of these affirmative defenses should be stricken as a matter of

law. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 3-5.)

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “the court

may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense.” 

“Affirmative defenses are governed by the same pleading standard as

complaints.” Qarbon.com Inc. v. Ehelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046,

1049 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“Qarbon”). “Affirmative defenses must give

[the] plaintiff ‘fair notice’ of the defense being advanced.” Wyshak

v. City National Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). “If the

court chooses to strike a defense, leave to amend should be freely

given so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.” 

Qarbon, 315 F. Supp. 2d at 1049. Plaintiff asserts that four of

Defendant’s affirmative defenses fail to provide fair notice and

should be stricken. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 3-5.) 

Defendant’s third affirmative defense states “Defendant

expressly reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses

if and to the extent that such affirmative defenses become

applicable.” (Answer ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs argue that this affirmative

defense fails to give adequate notice. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 3.) 

The “reservation of rights is not an affirmative defense.” Willson v.

Bank of Am., N.A., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16353, *13-14 (N.D. Cal.

Aug. 12, 2004). Defendant’s third affirmative defense is stricken

without leave to amend.

Defendant’s sixth affirmative defense states “Defendant

claims and pleads the immunities from liability for any and all

Case 2:06-cv-01104-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 09/21/06 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

injuries and damages alleged in the complaint on file herein, the

defenses and all rights granted to it, by virtue of the provisions of

California Government Code section 810-996.6, inclusive.” (Answer

¶ 6.) “Defendant’s general reference to a series of statutory

provisions does not provide [P]laintiff[s] with fair notice of the

basis of this defense.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. v. Scimed

Sys. Inc., 1996 WL 467277, *3 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 1996) (“Scimed”). 

Defendant’s sixth affirmative defense is stricken with leave to amend.

Defendant’s ninth affirmative defense states “Defendant

asserts that it is immune from liability as a result of executive

and/or legislative and/or judicial immunity under the common law,

United States statutes, and the opinions of the State and Federal

Courts interpreting these laws.” (Answer ¶ 9.) Referencing various

doctrines, without specifying how and why those doctrines provide a

defense is insufficient to give Plaintiffs notice. See Qarbon, 315

F. Supp. 2d at 1049 (stating “reference to a doctrine, like a

reference to statutory provisions, is insufficient notice”). 

Defendant’s ninth affirmative defense is stricken with leave to amend.

Defendant’s tenth affirmative defense states “Defendant is

immune from liability by reason of the provisions of the California

Penal Code, including but not limited to sections 834a, 835, 836,

836.5, 847 and Civil Code section 43.55.” Listing statutory

provisions is insufficient to provide Plaintiffs with fair notice of

the defense being asserted. Scimed, 1996 WL 467277, at *3;

Qarbon, 315 F. Supp. 2d at 1049. Defendant’s tenth affirmative

defense is stricken with leave to amend.

Defendant’s twelfth affirmative defense states “Plaintiff is

estopped from bringing a claim against Defendant by virtue of the

Case 2:06-cv-01104-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 09/21/06 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

doctrine of [l]aches and the doctrine of [u]nclean [h]ands.” (Answer

¶ 12.) Plaintiff argues the defense of laches is not a valid defense

to an FLSA claim. (Pl.’s Mot. to Strike at 5.) “The doctrine of

laches is inapplicable where Congress has provided a statute of

limitations to govern certain actions. Thus, since actions under the

FLSA are subject to the statute of limitations in the Portal-to-Portal

Act, [D]efendant has raised laches in error in this case.” Fleming v.

Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Comm., Inc., 834 F. Supp. 323, 328

(S.D. Cal. 1993) (citations omitted) rejected on other grounds, Barner

v. City of Novato, 17 F. 3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendant’s

affirmative defense based on the doctrine of laches is stricken

without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s third affirmative defense and the portion of

Defendant’s twelfth affirmative defense based on laches are stricken

without leave to amend. Defendant’s sixth, ninth, and tenth

affirmative defenses are stricken with leave to amend, provided that

an amended answer addressing any stricken defense is filed within ten

days of the date on which this Order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01104-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 4