Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00866/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00866-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 10cv0866

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv0866 DMS (RBB)

vs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS,

INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

[Docket No. 8]

MARIA ESTELA JIMENEZ A/K/A/

MARIA E. PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff J&J Sports Productions, Inc.’s motion to strike Defendants’

affirmative defenses. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. For the

reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s motion to strike.

I.

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants unlawfully broadcasted

a sporting event at their restaurant in Calexico, California. Plaintiff asserted four claims against

Defendants: (1) violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 605, unauthorized publication or use of communications;

(2) violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 553, unauthorized reception of cable service; (3) conversion; and (4)

violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. On July 22, 2010,

Defendants filed their Answer denying all claims. The Answer includes thirty affirmative defenses.

In response, Plaintiff filed the present motion.

Case 3:10-cv-00866-DMS-RBB Document 25 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv0866

II. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or

scandalous matter in a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). An insufficient defense fails to give the plaintiff

fair notice of the nature of the defense. Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979).

An “immaterial” matter has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or defenses

pleaded. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F. 2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510

U.S. 517, 534-35 (1994). An “impertinent” matter consists of statements that do not pertain and are

unnecessary to the issues in question. Id. 

Generally, motions to strike are disfavored because pleadings are of limited importance in

federal practice and such motions are usually used as a delaying tactic. RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox

Broadcasting Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 566 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, courts will generally grant a

motion to strike only when the moving party has proved that the matter to be stricken could have no

possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. See Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v.

Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2002); LeDuc v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co.,

814 F. Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Lastly, courts often require a showing of prejudice even when

a motion to strike is granted. SEC v. Sands, 902 F. Supp. 1149, 1166 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts a number of reasons for striking all of Defendants’ affirmative defenses. First,

Plaintiff argues that all of the affirmative defenses are insufficient because they are simply boilerplate

recitations. According to Plaintiff, these boilerplate recitations are devoid of facts and circumstances

thereby depriving Plaintiff of fair notice of the defense. Plaintiff also contends that some of the

affirmative defenses are not affirmative defenses at all because they merely restate Defendants’ denial

of liability, or assert that Plaintiff cannot prove the elements of the claims. Finally, Plaintiff argues that

some of the defenses should be stricken as irrelevant.

Defendants respond that each affirmative defense is based in part on their position that the

boxing match was aired for free on a television network. However, this position was not asserted in

Case 3:10-cv-00866-DMS-RBB Document 25 Filed 12/15/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 10cv0866

Defendants’ Answer. A ruling on a motion to strike affirmative defenses must be based on matters

contained in the pleadings. See Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516 (1959) (in considering a motion to strike

a defense, “the facts underlying it must be taken to be those set up in the...answer”). Therefore, this

Court will address each affirmative defense based only on matters alleged in the pleadings. 

A. Insufficient Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants do not provide any facts supporting any of the affirmative

defenses, thereby failing to give Plaintiff fair notice of the nature of the defenses, as required. In

response, Defendants argue that federal law only requires the defenses to be stated in simple, concise,

and direct terms. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

In some cases, merely pleading the name of an affirmative defense is sufficient. Woodfield v.

Bowman, 193 F. 3d 354, 362 (5th Cir. 1999). However, the defense must be sufficiently articulated so

that the plaintiff is not a victim of unfair surprise. Board of Trustees of San Diego Elec. Pension Trust

v. Bigley Elec., Inc., No. 07CV634, 2007 WL 2070355, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. July 12, 2007) (citing

Woodfield, 193 F.3d at 362). Here, many of the affirmative defenses are merely boilerplate recitations.

Defendants have not provided any facts related to these defenses in the pleadings. Based on the

pleadings, Plaintiff cannot know the intent or nature of the affirmative defenses pleaded. Therefore, the

Court strikes the first (failure to state a claim), fourth (no tangible property), seventh (unclean hands),

ninth (statutes of limitation), thirteenth (estoppel), fifteenth (waiver), sixteenth (failure to exhaust

administrative/judicial remedies), seventeenth (relief barred by law), eighteenth (laches), twentieth

(justification and privilege), twenty-third (consent), twenty-fourth (adequate remedy at law), and

twenty-fifth (inconsistent remedies) affirmative defenses. The motion to strike these affirmative

defenses is granted with leave to amend. 

B. Non-Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses plead matters extraneous to the plaintiff’s prima facie case, which deny

the plaintiff’s right to recover even if the allegations of the complaint are true. Marshack v. Orange

Commercial Credit (In re National Lumber & Supply), 184 B.R. 74, 77 ( B.A.P. 9th Cir.1995) (citing

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Main Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 (E.D. Cal. 1987)). A

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

Case 3:10-cv-00866-DMS-RBB Document 25 Filed 12/15/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 10cv0866

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendants assert in several defenses that they were not the cause of Plaintiff’s damages. This

is just another way of asserting that Plaintiff has not or cannot prove the element of causation. 

Defendants also claim a constitutional violation based on the lack of a requirement that Plaintiff must

prove punitive damages beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not an affirmative defense because

Defendants are not alleging that Plaintiff does not have a right to recover; instead, Defendants are

simply challenging the burden of proof required at trial. Similarly, Defendants’ reservation of the right

to amend is not a defense because it does not state an avoidance of liability. If Defendants seek to

amend the Answer, they must do so pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.

Accordingly, the third (defendant did not cause plaintiff’s damages), eighth

(intervening/superseding cause), tenth (plaintiff’s failure to act), twenty-first (no entitlement to

damages), twenty-sixth (no breach of duty), twenty-seventh (reasonable, just and proper acts), twentyeighth (failure to allege sufficient facts for punitive damages), twenty-ninth (violation of constitution),

and thirtieth (right to amend) affirmative defenses are stricken. 

C. Defenses That Are Immaterial

Plaintiff argues that some of Defendants’ defenses are immaterial because Defendants’

willfulness is only relevant to the determination of the propriety of enhanced statutory damages. Title

47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605 do not require a defendant to have knowledge that his conduct amounted to

a violation. See International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 997 F. 2d 998, 1004 (2d Cir. 1993) (finding

that 47 U.S.C. § 553 does not exempt an unaware person from liability). Instead, §§ 553(c)(3)©) and

605(e)(3)(C)(iii) provide that if “the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts

constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages...”

See 47 U.S.C.A. § 553(c)(3)©) (West 2010); 47 U.S.C.A. § 605(e)(3)(C)(iii) (West 2010). Therefore,

evidence of Defendants’ intent is unnecessary in determining the existence of a violation. The second

(good faith), fifth (no willful and/or mistaken conduct), sixth (conduct not authorized), eleventh

(comparative fault), twelfth (failure to mitigate damages), fourteenth (contributory negligence), and

nineteenth (bad faith) affirmative defenses are stricken.

Case 3:10-cv-00866-DMS-RBB Document 25 Filed 12/15/10 Page 4 of 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

- 5 - 10cv0866

D. Redundant Affirmative Defense

Here, the twenty-second affirmative defense (waiver) is the same as the fifteenth affirmative

defense (waiver). The motion to strike the twenty-second defense is granted. 

IV. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses is granted.

Specifically, the motion is granted with leave to amend with respect to the first, fourth, seventh, ninth,

thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and

twenty-fifth affirmative defenses. The motion is granted without leave to amend with respect to the

second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first,

twenty-second, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth affirmative

defenses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 15, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00866-DMS-RBB Document 25 Filed 12/15/10 Page 5 of 5