Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01324-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN BREWER, individually and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated, )

 )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SCOTT SALYER, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv1324 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES 

(Document 48)

Plaintiff Robin Brewer (“plainitff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated filed the instant motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses on July 6, 2007. The

matter was heard on August 10, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States

Magistrate Judge. Brian Maschler appeared on behalf of Defendant Scott Salyer (“Defendant”). 

Plaintiff submitted the motion without oral argument and did not make an appearance at the

hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant RICO class action against Defendant on September 21, 2006 on

behalf of all legal U.S. citizens who worked as hourly paid employees at SK Foods during the

last four years. Plaintiff seeks back pay to compensate him for the amount he believes his wages

were depressed as a result of Defendant hiring illegal immigrants at SK Foods.

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 59 Filed 08/31/07 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

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii granted in

part on May 17, 2007 and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 

Defendant answered the amended complaint on June 19, 2007. Pursuant to the Scheduling

Order, this case is bifurcated between issues relating to class certification and issues relating to

the merits. Discovery related to class certification closed on May 4, 2007.

On July 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed the present motion to strike defendant’s affirmative

defenses one through seven and nine though sixteen, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure

12(f). Defendant filed an opposition on July 20, 2007 and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 2,

2007. 

DISCUSSION

Before responding to a pleading, or if no responsive pleading is permitted, a party may

move to strike any “insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous

matter.” Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(f). “Affirmative defenses plead matters extraneous to plaintiff’s

prima facie case, which deny plaintiff’s right to recover, even if the allegations of the complaint

are true. FDIC v. Hurdman, 655 F. Supp. 259, 262 (ED Cal. 1987). Rule 8(b) requires a party

to state, “in short and plain terms the party’s defenses to each claim asserted . . .” Rule 8(c)

requires the affirmative pleading of 19 separate defenses. A motion to strike provides an early

challenge to the legal sufficiency of such defenses. California v. United States, 512 F.Supp. 36,

38 (ND CA 1981). 

A. First Affirmative Defense - Failure to State a Claim

Citing Quintana v. Baca, 233 F.R.D. 562, 564 (CD Cal. 2005), Plaintiff argues that

Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense - Failure to State a Claim, is not a valid affirmative

defense and further, the Court has already denied Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion which was

based on the same grounds. 

As pointed out by Judge Wanger in his June 1, 2007 Order denying Plaintiff’s motion to

strike the same affirmative defenses in Hernandez v. Balakian, 06cv1383 OWW DLB, Rule

12(h)(2) provides that the defense of failure to state a claim may be made in any pleading

permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), which includes an answer. The defense is therefore not

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 59 Filed 08/31/07 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

legally insufficient. Further, the Court has not ruled on the legally sufficiency of the amended

complaint because Defendant filed an answer on June 6, 2007. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore

denied as to the First Affirmative Defense. 

B. Second through Sixth Affirmative Defenses

In Affirmative Defenses Two through Six, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not

suffered any damages or that he is unable to establish a number of requirement to prove his

RICO claim:

Plaintiff contends that Affirmative Defenses Two through Six are simply denials of fact

or law pled in the complaint. Because these affirmative defenses do not raise matters extraneous

to the complaint, Plaintiff argues they should be stricken. Plaintiff also argues that this Court has

already determined that he has satisfactorily alleged a RICO enterprise: “The Complaint

distinguishes between Salyer (the named defendant) and SK Foods (the alleged enterprise) and,

furthermore, alleges that Salyer has approved and implemented the allegedly unlawful hiring

criteria. The fact that Salyer acted through SK Foods to advance the alleged scheme does not

make SK Foods the defendant. Thus, plaintiff has satisfactorily alleged a RICO enterprise . . .”

This Court agrees that “Plaintiff’s motion with regard to these affirmative defenses is, as 

Defendant asserts, an “unnecessary formalism . . .” Hernandez v. Balakian, 06cv1383 OWW 

DLB, Doc. 57, p.6:1-3. These affirmative defenses go to the heart of the case and Defendant will

be able to litigate them regardless of whether they remain in the answer. 

C. Seventh Affirmative Defense 

In the Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred

because he was paid a lawful wage and a wage for which he agreed to work. Plaintiff claims that

the fact that he “agreed” or “acquiesced” to work at this wage is not a valid affirmative defense

under RICO. Plaintiff cites Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134,

138 (1968), rev’d on other grounds, Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S.

752 (1984) in support of his argument that broad common law defenses such as unclean hands

are not recognized in actions under federal statutes, such as antitrust and securities fraud. 

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 59 Filed 08/31/07 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

This defense goes to Plaintiff’s theory of damage, which Defendant argues is premised on

an assumption that he is entitled to a wage that is higher than what California law requires or

than what he agreed to. Defendant argues this theory is untenable, both factually and legally and

that the cases cited by Plaintiff do not address this affirmative defense in the context of a RICO

action. In light of the unsettled nature of the law in this area, the Court will not, at the pleading

stage rule on the validity of this affirmative defense. See Hernandez v. Balakian, 06cv1383

OWW DLB, Doc. 57, p.12:18-23. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the seventh affirmative defense is

therefore denied. 

D. Affirmative Defenses Nine through Fifteen

Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nine through Fifteen allege that class certification is

not appropriate in this case. Citing Rule 23(c)(1)(a), Plaintiff argues these are not valid

affirmative defenses because class certification must occur “at an early practicable time.” 

This issue will be resolved in Rule 23 certification proceedings. Plaintiff’s motion to

strike is therefore denied. 

E. Sixteenth Affirmative Defense - Statute of Limitations

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s statute of limitations affirmative defense should be stricken

because it lacks any legal foundation. The statute of limitations for civil RICO claims is four

years and Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and,

consequentially RICO, continuously since 2002. Plaintiff cites Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17448 (ED Tenn 2006), holding that under the “separate accrual rule” in

RICO cases, a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations period begins, each time a

defendant commits an act which injuries the plaintiff’s business. Thus, Plaintiff argues that even

if he was aware of the illegal hiring prior to 2002, his claim is still not barred by the statute of

limitations.

Defendant argues that in a civil RICO action, the limitations period begins to run when a

plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury which is the basis for the action. 

The merits of this defense can only be determined on the basis of discovery and a fully

developed record. A Rule 12(f) motion is not an appropriate vehicle for making such a

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 59 Filed 08/31/07 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

determination. As noted by Judge Wanger, this Court is not bound by Trollinger v. Tyson Foods,

and in any event, the ruling was made at summary judgment, not in the context of a motion to

strike an affirmative defense. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01324-DAD-MJS Document 59 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 5