Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO CONSTRUE SOME AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

AS DENIALS, AND TO STRIKE OTHERS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion to Construe Some Affirmative Defenses as Denials, and to Strike Others [ECF No. 627] 

(“Motion”). Having reviewed the Motion, Defendants’ Response [ECF No. 659], and Plaintiff’s 

Reply [ECF No. 676], and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as follows:1

1. Abbonizio and Furman’s First Affirmative Defenses of Failure to State a Claim are 

stricken as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9; see also United States v. Halifax Hosp. Med. 

Ctr., No. 09-01002, 2013 WL 6017329, at *12 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2013) (indicating that failure 

1

 See [ECF No. 607] for Defendant LaForte’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses; [ECF No. 608] for 

Defendant Barleta’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses; [ECF No. 609] for Defendant McElhone’s Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses; [ECF No. 615] for Defendant Abbonizio’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses; 

[ECF No. 617] for Defendant Furman’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses; and [ECF No. 658] for 

Defendant Vagnozzi’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is a failure of pleading, not an affirmative 

defense); In re Rawson Food Serv. Inc., 846 F.2d 1343, 1350 n.9 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting that 

failure to state a claim is not an affirmative defense).

2. Abbonizio and Furman’s Second Affirmative Defenses of Statute of Limitations 

are stricken as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9.

3. Abbonizio and Furman’s Third Affirmative Defenses of Lack of Scienter are 

construed as denials as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9; see also Tsavaris v. Pfizer, Inc., 

310 F.R.D. 678, 682 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (construing as denials defenses that do not attempt to avoid 

liability while admitting the facts of the complaint, but rather deny the complaint’s allegations 

outright or identify a defect or lack of evidence in the plaintiff’s case). 

4. Abbonizio and Furman’s Fifth Affirmative Defenses of Mistake are construed as 

denials as agreed to by the parties. See id.

5. Abbonizio and Furman’s Eighth Affirmative Defenses of Acts of Others are 

construed as denials as agreed to by the parties. See id.

6. Abbonizio and Furman’s Ninth Affirmative Defense of Improper Forfeiture and 

Tenth Affirmative Defense of Unjust Enrichment are stricken with leave to amend. Defendants

are permitted to plead such relief-based affirmative defenses. See United States Commodity 

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Mintco LLC, No. 15-61960, 2016 WL 3944101, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 

17, 2016) (declining to “draw a line between defenses limiting or eliminating damages and those 

precluding liability for purposes of defining affirmative defenses”); S.E.C. v. Spartan Sec. Grp., 

LTD, No. 19-00448, 2019 WL 3323477, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2019) (allowing defendant to 

assert affirmative defense that the SEC’s request for disgorgement is not a proper remedy); S.E.C.

v. Esposito, No. 16-10960, 2017 WL 5615571, at *3 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2017) (denying SEC’s 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

motion to strike affirmative defenses that “do not pertain to liability per se but to the SEC’s 

requested remedies”). However, as currently pleaded, Defendants’ relief-based defenses are 

barebones, conclusory, and do not satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

7. Abbonizio and Furman’s Eleventh Affirmative Defenses of Unconstitutionality are 

stricken as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9. 

8. Abbonizio and Furman’s Twelfth Affirmative Defenses of Lack of Causation are 

stricken with prejudice. See S.E.C. v. Curshen, 888 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1307 (“The SEC, unlike 

private litigants, does not need to prove investor reliance, loss causation or damages in actions 

under [Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act or Section 17(a) of the Securities Act].”) 

(quotation omitted); S.E.C. v. BIH Corp., No. 10-00577, 2013 WL 1212769, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 

25, 2013) (striking legally irrelevant defenses). 

9. Abbonizio and Furman’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses of Lack of Materiality 

are construed as denials as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9. 

10. Defendants’ affirmative defenses of waiver (Vagnozzi’s Fifth Affirmative Defense 

in Amended Answer; McElhone, LaForte, and Barleta’s Sixth Affirmative Defense; and Furman 

and Abbonizio’s Fifteenth Affirmative Defense) are stricken with prejudice. See Fed. Trade 

Comm’n v. On Point Glob. LLC, No. 19-25046, 2020 WL 4505811, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2020) 

(striking waiver defense because “the government cannot waive its sovereign capacity to defend 

the public interest”); United States v. BayCare Health Sys., No. 14-00073, 2016 WL 7232445, at 

*1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2016) (finding waiver defense unavailable against the government); Fed. 

Trade Comm’n v. Leshin, No. 06-61851, 2007 WL 9703567, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2007) (striking 

waiver defense because it “has been found not to be applicable against a government agency in 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

that an agency ‘may not waive the requirement of an act of Congress.’”) (quoting S.E.C. v. Morgan, 

Lewis & Bockius, 209 F.2d 44, 49 (3d Cir. 1954)). 

11. Defendants’ affirmative defenses of laches (Vagnozzi’s Sixth Affirmative Defense 

in Amended Answer; McElhone, LaForte, Barleta’s Fourth Affirmative Defense; and Furman and 

Abbonizio’s Sixteenth Affirmative Defense) are stricken with prejudice. S.E.C. v. Silverman, 328 

F. App’x 601, 605 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming “district court’s finding that laches is not available 

as a defense to this SEC civil law enforcement action” and indicating that “where, as in this case, 

a government agency brings an enforcement action to protect the public interest, laches is not a 

defense.”); Savoury v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 449 F.3d 1307, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[L]aches cannot be 

asserted against the United States in its sovereign capacity to enforce a public right or to protect 

the public interest.”) (quotation omitted); On Point Glob. LLC, 2020 WL 4505811, at *2

(indicating that laches affirmative defense “cannot be used against the government in a civil suit 

brought to enforce a public right or protect a public interest”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. U.S. Work 

All., Inc., No. 08-02053, 2009 WL 10669724, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2009) (striking laches 

defense because “[t]he law is clear that laches cannot be pleaded against the federal government 

in suits by it to protect the public interest” and “the public policy in favor of protecting the federal 

government from a laches defense outweighs the very slight prejudice caused to the Defendants 

by striking this affirmative defense”); Leshin, 2007 WL 9703567, at *3 (striking laches affirmative 

defense); S.E.C. v. Rivlin, No. 99-01455, 1999 WL 1455758, at *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 1999) (“Where 

all claims are brought within the statute of limitations, the court presumes the action was 

commenced without unreasonable delay.”). 

12. Defendants’ affirmative defenses of estoppel (Vagnozzi’s Fourth Affirmative 

Defense in Amended Answer; McElhone, LaForte, and Barleta’s Fifth Affirmative Defense; and 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

Furman and Abbonizio’s Fourteenth Affirmative Defense) are stricken with leave to amend. 

Defendants are permitted to plead an estoppel defense. See Spartan Sec. Grp., LTD, 2019 WL 

3323477, at *2 (declining to strike affirmative defense of estoppel because the fact that it is only 

available in extreme circumstances does not render it insufficient as a matter of law); S.E.C. v. 

Calmes, No. 09-80524, 2010 WL 11505260, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2010) (declining to strike 

estoppel defense even though defendants have to meet a very high burden to establish it against 

the government); On Point Glob. LLC, 2020 WL 4505811 at *3 (declining to strike estoppel 

defense because it may be used against the government in extreme circumstances). However, as 

currently pleaded, Defendants’ estoppel defenses are barebones, conclusory, and do not satisfy the 

pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

13. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ Reliance on Advice of Counsel, Reliance 

on Professionals, and Good Faith defenses is denied. The Court finds said defenses are sufficiently 

pleaded and do not cause prejudice to Plaintiff.

14. McElhone, LaForte, and Barleta’s Seventh Affirmative Defense and Furman and 

Abbonizio’s Eighteenth Affirmative Defense averring that the promissory notes at issue are not 

securities are construed as denials because they negate an element Plaintiff must prove as part of 

its prima facie case. See S.E.C. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 678 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir. 2012)

(describing the elements the SEC must prove to establish securities fraud violations, which include 

“the purchase or sale of a security” and “the offer or sale of a security”); Rawson Food Services, 

846 F.2d at 1349 (“A defense which points out a defect in the plaintiff’s prima facie case is not an 

affirmative defense.”).

2

 

2 To the extent Defendants are relying on a statutory or regulatory exemption that is not part of Plaintiff’s 

prima facie case and may be asserted as a defense, Defendants are permitted to replead it but must do so 

with greater specificity. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

15. Furman and Abbonizio’s Seventh Affirmative Defense of Justifiable Reliance is 

stricken as agreed to by the parties. See Resp. at 9. 

16. Defendants shall file Amended Answers and Affirmative Defenses in conformance 

with this Order by August 20, 2021. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 13th day of August, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 690 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2021 Page 6 of 6