Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05145/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:0605 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

G&G Closed Circuit Events LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Mellie Barajas, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05145-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Plaintiff accuses Defendants of violating federal law by commercially exhibiting a 

televised pay-per-view boxing match to which Plaintiff owns the exclusive nationwide 

licensing rights without first obtaining the requisite license. (Doc. 1.) Defendants’ answer

denies the allegations and contains the following affirmative defenses section:

1. For their affirmative defenses, Defendants assert one or 

more of the following:

a. Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted;

b. Failure to mitigate damages;

c. Estoppel;

d. Contributory negligence;

e. Defendants acted reasonably and in good faith at all 

material times herein, based on all relevant facts and 

circumstances known by them at the time they so acted;

f. To the extent Plaintiff incurred any damages, such

damages were caused in whole or in part by Plaintiff’s

Case 2:19-cv-05145-DLR Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

own actions or the actions of other defendants;

g. Mistake;

h. Assumption of risk;

i. Intervening/Superseding cause;

j. Misrepresentation and Fraud;

k. Failure of consideration.

2. Defendants affirmatively assert that Plaintiff may not 

recover under both 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553.

3. Discovery may reveal the existence and applicability of 

additional affirmative defenses. For the specific purpose of not 

waiving any defenses which are revealed or clarified through 

further discovery, Defendants preserve those affirmative 

defenses as contained within Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

4, 8, 12 and 19.

(Doc. 10.) Plaintiff has moved to strike these affirmative defenses.1(Doc. 13.) In response, 

Defendants agreed to withdraw the following: failure to state a claim, 

intervening/superseding cause, assumption of risk, estoppel, and failure of consideration. 

(Doc. 15 at 2.) This order addresses the remainder.

The Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Whether to strike 

material that falls within the scope of Rule 12(f) is discretionary. See Whittlestone, Inc. v. 

Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2010). “Motions to strike are generally 

disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited 

importance of pleadings in federal practice.” Contrina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 

1774, 1182 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, even if an affirmative defense is insufficient or immaterial, courts generally 

will not grant a motion to strike unless the movant can show that the defense has “no 

1 Several of the defenses Defendants characterize as affirmative defenses plainly are 

not because they are denials of elements of Plaintiff’s claims. “A defense which 

demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” 

See Zikovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). An affirmative 

defense, in contrast, is one that precludes liability even if Plaintiff proves all the elements 

of its claims. For ease, the Court will refer to Defendants’ defenses collectively as 

“affirmative defenses,” even though this description technically is inaccurate as to some.

Case 2:19-cv-05145-DLR Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a 

party.” Id.

The Court agrees that some of the remaining affirmative defenses in paragraph 1 of 

the affirmative defenses section in Defendants’ answer are insufficient or immaterial. For 

example, Defendants assert a contributory negligence affirmative defense, even though this 

is not a negligence case. But the Court will deny the motion to strike because many of 

Defendants’ remaining affirmative defenses, though perhaps inaccurately labeled, bear a 

possible relationship to the controversy. The overarching theme of these affirmative 

defenses is that, if Defendants are found liable, damages should be reduced because 

Defendants did not know or have reason to know that they were violating federal law. 

Based on the briefing, Plaintiff (whose counsel is quite experienced in these types of 

commercial piracy cases) understands as much. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by the fact that 

Defendants have assigned imprecise labels to what, at bottom, is a single damages-related 

defense. Moreover, fact discovery closes on May 31, 2020, and dispositive motions are 

due June 30, 2020. By that time, Defendants should be able to dispose of any affirmative 

defense that are not borne out by the facts and refine the terminology they use to describe 

their damages-related arguments. Striking these affirmative defenses likely will have no 

real-world impact on the parties’ behavior at this stage.

 Similarly, paragraph 2 is, at bottom, a damages-related defense that undeniably 

relates to this controversy. Though it might not meet the technical definition of an 

affirmative defense, Plaintiff is not prejudiced by this imprecision. 

Finally, paragraph 3 is a reservation of Defendants’ perceived right to amend their

answer in response to new factual developments. Although this is in no way a defense, 

affirmative or otherwise, it also is unnecessary and ineffective. Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 15 and 16, along with the Court’s scheduling order, provide mechanisms for 

amending pleadings. That a party purports to “reserve” the right to amend its pleadings 

changes nothing about the standards governing motions for leave to amend pleadings. 

Plaintiff is not prejudiced by the inclusion of this meaningless reservation. 

Case 2:19-cv-05145-DLR Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

In sum, though Defendants have used imprecise terminology in their answer,

striking the offending matter will have no practical effect on this litigation. Motions to 

strike are disfavored for precisely this reason. See, e.g., Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 

F.3d 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2001) (advising counsel against filing motions to strike unless the 

matter at issue “is actually prejudicial,” and lamenting that “[s]uch motions are what give 

‘motion practice’ a deservedly bad name.”); Raymond Weil, S.A. v. Theron, 585 F. Supp. 

2d 473, 489-90 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008) (explaining, rather bluntly, that a motion to strike 

boilerplate affirmative defenses “wastes the client’s money and the court’s time.”). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 13) is DENIED.

Dated this 3rd day of April, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05145-DLR Document 24 Filed 04/03/20 Page 4 of 4