Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00090/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

- 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AREA 55, LLC, a California limited 

liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SURE FIT HOME DÉCOR, LLC, an 

Illinois limited liability company, fka 

FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:19-cv-90-LAB (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ 

INSUFFICIENT DEFENSES [Dkt. 26];

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY [Dkt. 36]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Area 55’s motion to strike Defendant Sure 

Fit’s1 affirmative defenses. For the reasons below, that motion is GRANTED. 

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to “strike from a pleading an 

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 

Affirmative defenses “deny plaintiffs right to recover, even if the allegations of the 

complaint are true.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 

(E.D. Cal. 1987). “A statement that denies plaintiff’s prima facie case is not an affirmative 

 

1 Area 55 sued two related entities, Sure Fit Home Décor, LLC and SF Home Décor, LLC. 

They are collectively referred to as “Sure Fit” here.

Case 3:19-cv-00090-LAB-BLM Document 38 Filed 07/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 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

defense.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kurti, 2015 WL 5276691, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2015). 

Properly pleaded affirmative defenses must “give plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” 

Wyshak v. City National Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). Although a defense 

need not include extensive factual allegations to give fair notice, Sec. People, Inc. v. 

Classic Woodworking, LLC, 2005 WL 645592, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2005), bare statements 

reciting mere legal conclusions may be insufficient. CTF Dev., Inc. v. Penta Hospitality, 

LLC, 2009 WL 3517617, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Where a court strikes an affirmative 

defense, leave to amend is ordinarily given freely. See Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 826-27 (9th 

Cir. 1979).

II. Defenses That Are Not Affirmative Defenses

Sure Fit’s second defense—that Area 55 has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted—is not an affirmative defense. See J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. 

Juarez, 2016 WL 795891, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2016).

Sure Fit’s fifth defense—that Area 55’s claimed damages are in excess of those 

permitted by statute and that the contractual provisions relied upon to assert the damages 

are unenforceable penalty clauses—merely denies an element of Area 55’s claim; it’s not 

an affirmative defense. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Davis, 2012 WL 4803923, at 

*4 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 306 F.R.D. 279, 285 (N.D. 

Cal. 2015) (“[A] defense targeting the amount of the recovery is a limitation rather than 

an affirmative defense.”).

Likewise, Sure Fit’s eleventh defense, which states that it did not materially breach 

the agreements, is a denial of the allegations of the claim and not an affirmative defense. 

III. Insufficiently Alleged Affirmative Defenses

Defenses three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen are 

insufficiently alleged because they’re legal conclusions. They merely recite the respective 

legal doctrines without factual allegations to give Area 55 fair notice of the defenses. See 

CTF Dev., Inc., 2009 WL 3517617, at *7.

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00090-LAB-BLM Document 38 Filed 07/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 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

IV. Conclusion

Area 55’s motion to strike is GRANTED. Dkt. 26. Sure Fit’s second, fifth, and 

eleventh affirmative defenses are stricken without leave to amend. Defenses three, four, 

six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen are stricken with leave to amend. 

Sure Fit may file an amended answer by August 16, 2019. 

Sure Fit also sought leave to file a sur-reply in support of its opposition. The 

arguments in that brief are immaterial to the Court’s conclusion here, so that motion is 

DENIED. Dkt. 36. As both sides are aware, “the [C]ourt’s time is valuable and motions 

to strike are disfavored.” Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 

718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1175 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Using even more of the Court’s time by 

expanding the briefing on an already-disfavored motion is not well taken. The parties 

should work together in the future to resolve their disputes informally and avoid 

unnecessary motion practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00090-LAB-BLM Document 38 Filed 07/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3