Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01389/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01389-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 8/14/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE FACEBOOK, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONNECTU LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-01389 (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

Plaintiff The Facebook, Inc. moves to strike the affirmative defenses pleaded herein by

defendant ConnectU. The Court finds the matter suitable for submission without oral argument,

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b).

It is fairly common practice for parties answering complaints to attempt to err on the side of

over-inclusion and to state, in almost laundry list fashion, as many “affirmative defenses” as

possible, often in wholly conclusory form. On occasion, some of the “defenses” alleged may not

even be true affirmative defense, but instead relate to elements of the plaintiff’s claims. 

Where an attorney simply selects all potentially available affirmative defenses from the standard

forms used in the attorney’s office, with little analysis or consideration of the particular facts at

hand, it may at times press up against the boundaries of the attorney’s duties under Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, bare legal conclusions posing as affirmative defenses

arguably contravene the requirements of Rule 8 and of case law that pleadings provide “fair notice.”

See Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 927 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The key to determining the

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 125 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 While the issues facing defendants, cross-defendants, and counter-defendant may differ

somewhat depending on whether they had a role in initiating the litigation or not, defending against

any form of claim for affirmative relief is substantially different from responding to an affirmative

defense. For convenience, the remainder of this discussion will not specifically reference countercomplaints and cross-complaints.

2

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

defense.”). For these reasons, rote pleading of affirmative defenses, particularly in conclusory

fashion, is not to be encouraged.

That said, insufficiently pleaded affirmative defenses present significantly different issues

than conclusory allegations in a complaint or even in a counterclaim or cross-complaint.1

Permitting a plaintiff to proceed on a conclusory or factually deficient complaint potentially exposes

the defendant to expensive and intrusive discovery, and to pressure to settle the matter for its

“nuisance value.” In most cases, even the most conclusory affirmative defenses do not impose

similar burdens. In few instances, if any, will such pleadings render subject matter discoverable that

is not already implicated by the allegations of the complaint. To determine the precise nature of the

defendant’s affirmative defenses, plaintiff will rarely need do more than propound simple “state all

facts” interrogatories. Even if the responses are not wholly satisfactory, or if it becomes apparent

some lack sufficient evidentiary basis, plaintiff is then in a position not greatly different from the

circumstances that would exist if the defenses had been pleaded with greater particularity in the first

instance.

Proceeding with a motion to strike, in contrast, almost inevitably is a less efficient way of

moving towards a resolution on the merits. Even if the motion were granted as a result of the

technical deficiencies in the pleading, leave to amend would be required under nearly all

conceivable circumstances. While the defendant might then abandon at least some of the weaker

defenses in some instances, most likely the amended pleading will still contain numerous affirmative

defenses, which, even if stated with sufficient factual detail for pleading purposes, will still lead to a

set of “state all facts” interrogatories.

Granting or denying a motion to strike lies within the discretion of the court. See Federal

Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Gemini Mgmt., 921 F.2d 241, 244 (9th Cir.1990). Although the pleading

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 125 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

C 07-01389 (RS)

3

of affirmative defenses in overly-conclusory fashion should be avoided for the reasons stated above,

the countervailing interest in conserving resources of the parties and the Court warrants denying this

motion. ConnectU, however, is expected to exercise the utmost good faith in evaluating whether

any of its asserted affirmative defenses should be withdrawn, in the event they appear to lack

evidentiary support.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 125 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

C 07-01389 (RS)

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

I. Neel Chatterjee nchatterjee@orrick.com, kmudurian@orrick.com

Monte M.F. Cooper mcooper@orrick.com, adalton@orrick.com, shart@orrick.com

Chester Wren-Ming Day cday@orrick.com, descamilla@orrick.com, mgirroir@orrick.com

George Hopkins Guy , III hopguy@orrick.com, adalton@orrick.com, msagmit@orrick.com

Scott Richard Mosko scott.mosko@finnegan.com, karen.reimer@finnegan.com,

lissette.vazquez@finnegan.com, matthew.tueller@finnegan.com,

randal.holderfield@finnegan.com, rosanna.herrick@finnegan.com, thuy.luu@finnegan.com

Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com, aako-nai@orrick.com, ygreer@orrick.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 8/14/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 125 Filed 08/14/07 Page 4 of 4