Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

JOSHUA D. BRIGGS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OREAN YI, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND STRIKE 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Before the Court at Docket 18 is Plaintiff Briggs’ Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and Strike Affirmative Defenses. Defendants responded in opposition to 

the motion at Docket 20 and Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the motion at Docket 

21. 

Plaintiff seeks an order that would deem admitted certain allegations in 

Plaintiff’s complaint based on an alleged failure by Defendants to comply with Rule 

8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Plaintiff also seeks an order striking all 

of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. Plaintiff cites to Rule 12(f), which provides 

that a district court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 

1 Plaintiff asserts that the responses to the following paragraphs of his complaint are deficient: 

Paragraphs 4, 23, 29, 42, 43, 45, 61, 64, 66, 71, and 81. 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.

Order re Motion to Deem Admitted and Strike Affirmative Defenses

Page 2 of 3 

Plaintiff’s motion seeks for this Court to strictly interpret Rule 8(b) as to both 

the responses to the complaint’s allegations and as to the affirmative defenses. 

With respect to the responses to the complaint, Plaintiff cites to Rule 

8(b)(1)(B), which requires the responder to “admit or deny the allegations asserted 

against it,” and Rule 8(b)(6), which provides that “[a]n allegation—other than one 

relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required 

and the allegation is not denied.” 

With respect to the affirmative defenses, a court “should be cautious prior to 

granting a motion to dismiss affirmative defenses.”2 A party asserting affirmative 

defenses “should be given the opportunity to prove his allegations if there is any 

possibility that the defense might succeed on the merits.”3 “The key to determining 

the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair 

notice of the defense.”4

Although Plaintiff has cited to some district court decisions in this Circuit that 

have strictly interpreted these rules with respect to the responses in an answer 

and the listing of affirmative defenses, that has not been the practice in this district, 

2 Simpson v. Alaska State Comm’n for Hum. Rts., 423 F. Supp. 552, 554 (D. Alaska 1976), aff’d, 

608 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1979). 

3 Id. (first citing Purex Corp. v. Gen. Foods Corp., 318 F. Supp. 322, 323 (C.D. Cal. 1970); and 

then citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1381, at 800-801). 

4 Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that amended answer that 

simply alleged that “plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations” was 

adequate, when accompanied by attached memorandum in support of motion to amend that cited 

statute on which defense relied). 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.

Order re Motion to Deem Admitted and Strike Affirmative Defenses

Page 3 of 3 

at least so far as the undersigned judge is aware. And the Court does not see that 

such a practice, if adopted in this district, would promote “the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”5 Rather, it would likely 

add yet another round (or more) of motion practice, in addition to the motions to 

dismiss and summary judgment motions that are often filed in federal district court. 

The Court finds that the parties’ efforts here (and the Court’s efforts) would be 

better directed at this time toward any necessary fact discovery rather than 

additional motion practice. “‘Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice,’ and 

requiring Defendants to admit Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions does not appear to be 

an act of justice.”6

Defendants’ answer does not contain redundant, immaterial, impertinent or 

scandalous material, and it adequately apprises Plaintiff of the factual allegations 

that it contests in Plaintiff’s complaint and the affirmative defenses it intends to 

assert. For the foregoing reasons, the motion at Docket 18 is DENIED. 

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

6 Guifu Li v. A Perfect Franchise, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-01189-LHK, 2011 WL 2971046, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. July 21, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)). 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 3