Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00988/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00988-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Luis Virata, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Eric Zemke, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0988-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant/Cross-Claimant Revenue Enhancement Specialists LLC alleged the 

following theories for relief against Defendant/Cross-Defendants Steve Wallace and 

ACLS Pegasus, LLC: “Fraud; Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith 

and Fair Dealing; Deceptive or Unfair Trade Practices; Money Had and Received; 

Wrongful Act of Another; Unjust Enrichment; Declaratory Relief; Conversion; Tortious 

Interference With Contractual Relations; [and] Rescission/Restitution.” Doc. 35, at 1. 

Cross-Claimant has moved to strike, under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, six of the affirmative defenses raised by Defendants/Cross-Defendants in their 

answer. Doc. 49. The six affirmative defenses are (1) intervening cause, (2) supervening 

cause, (3) contributory negligence, (4) lack of consideration, (5) lack of privity, and 

(6) respondeat superior. Doc. 49. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 49, 50, 52. 

The parties have withdrawn their request for oral argument. Doc. 52. For the reasons 

below, the Court will deny the motion in part and grant it in part. 

Case 2:11-cv-00988-DGC Document 54 Filed 10/04/11 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 

I. Standard of Review 

Rule 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient 

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(f). A court should strike an “insufficient defense” only if (1) it appears to a certainty 

that the claimant will succeed regardless of what facts could be proved in support of the 

defense; (2) the affirmative defense sought to be struck does not present disputed and 

substantial questions of law that could be resolved in such a way as to support the 

defense; and (3) the claimant shows it will be prejudiced by inclusion of the affirmative 

defense. See Tompkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 92 F. Supp. 2d 70, 80 (N.D.N.Y. 

2000). “Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor, but are proper when a 

defense is insufficient as a matter of law.” Torres v. Goddard, 2008 WL 1817994 (D. 

Ariz. April 22, 2008). 

II. Discussion 

 Cross-Claimant argues that it makes no stand-alone negligence claim and that 

Cross-Defendants’ (1) intervening cause, (2) supervening cause, and (3) contributory 

negligence defenses are inapplicable to its contract and intentional tort claims. CrossClaimant further argues that there is no factual or legal basis for the (4) lack of 

consideration and (5) lack of privity defenses. However, Cross-Claimant has not shown 

that it will be prejudiced by the inclusion of any of these affirmative defenses. Lack of 

consideration and lack of privity are normal contractual defenses. See, e.g., PAE Gov. 

Servs., Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court 

denies the motion to strike affirmative defenses 1-5. 

 With respect to affirmative defense 6, Cross-Defendants concede in their response 

that respondeat superior is a vicarious liability theory, not an affirmative defense. 

Doc. 50. The Court finds that it is proper to strike the respondeat superior defense 

because it is insufficient as a matter of law. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Motion to strike is denied with respect to the affirmative defenses of (1) 

Case 2:11-cv-00988-DGC Document 54 Filed 10/04/11 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 

intervening cause, (2) supervening cause, (3) contributory negligence, (4) lack of 

consideration, and (5) lack of privity. 

 2. Motion to strike is granted with respect to the affirmative defense of (6) 

respondeat superior. 

 Dated this 4th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00988-DGC Document 54 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 3