Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01578/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01578-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0053 Federal Trade Commission 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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Federal Trade Commission,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Vemma Nutrition Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01578-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Motion to Strike 

Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 157, Mot.), to which Defendants jointly filed a Response 

(Doc. 166, Resp.) and the FTC filed a Reply (Doc. 168, Reply). The FTC asks the Court 

to strike all but one of the affirmative defenses raised in the Answers filed by Defendants 

Vemma Nutrition Company and Vemma International Holdings, Inc. (collectively, 

“Corporate Defendants”) (Doc. 123 at 12, Corp. Aff. Def.), Defendant Tom Alkazin 

(Doc. 124 at 14, Alkazin Aff. Def.), and Defendant Benson K. Boreyko (Doc. 125 at 10-

11, Boreyko Aff. Def.) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). (Mot. at 2.) 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) provides that a defendant must “state any 

avoidance or affirmative defense” in answering a complaint. The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has construed this requirement to mean that a defendant must give “fair notice” 

of affirmative defenses to the plaintiff. Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 

1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 

1979)). The Supreme Court has long held that fair notice requires only a plain statement 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 239 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

of the nature and grounds of a claim or defense. See Kohler v. Islands Rests., LP, 280 

F.R.D. 560, 564 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

 An affirmative defense may be insufficient as a matter of pleading or of law. Id.; 

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Main Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1987). A party 

may ask the Court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” under Rule 12(f). “The function of a 12(f) 

motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from 

litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Fantasy, Inc. v. 

Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted), rev’d on other 

grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). “‘Immaterial’ matter is that which has no essential or 

important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded.” Id. (quoting 

5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1382, at 706-07, 

711 (2d ed. 1990)). Courts generally view motions to strike disfavorably “because they 

are often used to delay and because of the limited importance of the pleadings in federal 

practice.” Brewer v. Indymac Bank, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “A 

motion to strike should not be granted unless it is absolutely clear that the matter to be 

stricken could have no possible bearing on the litigation.” Id. 

A. Fair Notice of Affirmative Defenses 

 The FTC first argues that Defendants’ affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled. 

(Mot. at 5-6.) As noted above, Defendants need only provide a plain statement of the 

nature and grounds of each affirmative defense; they need not plead “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” as required by Bell Atlantic 

Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and its progeny. See G & G Closed 

Circuit Events, LLC v. Mitropoulos, No. CV-12-0163-PHX-DGC, 2012 WL 3028368, at 

*1 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2012). With this standard in mind, the Court finds that Defendants 

gave the FTC fair notice of their affirmative defenses with one exception: Defendants’ 

allegations that the FTC’s claims for injunctive and other relief are unconstitutional or 

otherwise not authorized or available at law or equity. (Corp. Aff. Def. ¶¶ 2, 3; Alkazin 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 239 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

Aff. Def. ¶¶ 2, 3, 4; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶¶ B, C.) These allegations lack any specificity 

and thus provide the FTC with inadequate information to prepare its case—indeed, it was 

only in Defendants’ briefs that the Court could begin to discern these affirmative 

defenses. Accordingly, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion with regard to these 

affirmative defenses. Because courts should freely grant leave to amend an affirmative 

defense absent prejudice to the opposing party, Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 826-27, Defendants 

may amend their Answers if they can state these affirmative defenses with enough 

specificity to give fair notice to the FTC. 

B. Failure to State a Claim 

The FTC next asserts that Defendants’ allegation that the FTC failed to state a 

claim for relief (Corp. Aff. Def. ¶ 1; Alkazin Aff. Def. ¶ 1; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶ A) is not 

a proper affirmative defense. (Mot. at 7.) While Defendants justify raising this as an 

affirmative defense by citing out-of-circuit district court decisions (Resp. at 6), the Court 

agrees with the conclusion of other district courts in the Ninth Circuit that failure to state 

a claim is properly raised as a challenge to a plaintiff’s prima facie claim, not as an 

affirmative defense to it. See, e.g., Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefits Plan—

Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Because 

Defendants cannot cure this defect, the Court will strike this affirmative defense with no 

leave to amend. 

C. Affirmative Defenses Related to Damages 

 The FTC also contends that Defendants’ allegation that they acted in good faith 

(Corp. Aff. Def. ¶ 4; Alkazin Aff. Def. ¶ 5; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶ D) is not a valid 

affirmative defense because good faith is not a defense to FTC Act liability. (Mot. at 7-8.) 

While this is true, the Court agrees with other district courts in the Ninth Circuit that have 

found that good faith may be asserted against the granting of a permanent injunction. See, 

e.g., FTC v, Hang-Ups Enters., Inc., No. CV 95-0027 RMT (JGx), 1995 WL 914179, at 

*3 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 1995). Because the FTC seeks a permanent injunction in this case, 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 239 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

good faith is to that extent a valid affirmative defense. Accordingly, the Court will deny 

the FTC’s Motion in this regard. 

 As for Defendants’ allegations that the FTC or the consumers it represents failed 

to mitigate their losses (Corp. Aff. Def. ¶ 5; Alkazin Aff. Def. ¶ 6; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶ E) 

and that consumers voluntarily exposed themselves to losses, thus assuming the risk 

(Corp. Aff. Def. ¶ 7; Alkazin Aff. Def. ¶ 8; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶ G), the FTC argues that 

these are not valid affirmative defenses because relief under the FTC Act is equitable and 

dependent on the amount of gain by Defendants, not loss by consumers. (Reply at 5.) The 

Court agrees. See FTC v. Medicor, LLC, No. CV011896CBMEX, 2001 WL 765628, at 

*2 (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2001). As a result, the Court will grant the FTC’s Motion with 

regard to these affirmative defenses. Because amendment cannot cure the legal defect in 

these affirmative defenses, Defendants may not amend them. 

D. Negative Defenses 

 Finally, the FTC argues that some of Defendants’ affirmative defenses are not 

affirmative but rather negative—that is, they are not grounded in Defendants’ admission 

of the essential facts of the FTC’s claims coupled with a statement of some other 

justification, but rather are denials of the essential facts.1

 (Mot. at 9-11.) The remaining 

affirmative defense to which the FTC applies this argument is the allegation that the 

losses sustained by the FTC or consumers were not caused by Defendants, but rather 

third parties over whom Defendants had no control or right to control. (Corp. Aff. Def. 

¶ 6; Alkazin Aff. Def. ¶ 7; Boreyko Aff. Def. ¶ F.) The Court agrees that this is simply 

Defendants’ denial of their own liability and thus wrapped up in the denials contained in 

Defendants’ Answers. See, e.g., FTC v. Stefanchik, No. C04-1852 RSM, 2004 WL 

5495267, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2004). The Court will therefore grant the FTC’s 

 

1

 While the FTC includes as affirmative defenses it claims are actually negative defenses the allegations that the FTC lacks authority to seek damages from Defendants, the Court has already found that those affirmative defenses are not sufficiently pled, and the Court cannot evaluate them until they are. 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 239 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

Motion to Strike these affirmative defenses, and because Defendants cannot cure the 

defect, they may not amend. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff 

Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 157). 

With regard to Corporate Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 123 at 12), the Court 

strikes Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 with no leave to amend, and Nos. 2 and 3 with leave to amend. 

With regard to Mr. Alkazin’s Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 124 at 14), the Court strikes 

Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 with no leave to amend, and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with leave to amend. With 

regard to Mr. Boreyko’s Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 125 at 10-11), the Court strikes 

Defenses A, E, F and G with no leave to amend, and Defenses B and C with leave to 

amend. The FTC’s Motion is denied as to the balance of Defendants’ Affirmative 

Defenses. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file any amended Answers by 

July 15, 2016. 

 Dated this 30th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01578-JJT Document 239 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 5