Source: https://fedcivilprocedure.com/2012/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:08:04+00:00

Document:
Phillips v. DePAUL UNIVERSITY, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2012 – Google Scholar.
In this memorandum opinion, the district court struck a complaint originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on the ground that the complaint was too “prolix.” In other words the complaint was too long and wordy.
Abraham v. NEWBERRY COUNTY, Dist. Court, D. South Carolina 2012 – Google Scholar.
The defendant removed the action, but was unable to identify a federal question set forth in the complaint. Thus, the case was remanded back to state court.
The defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of removal jurisdiction.Mulachey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). Because removal jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns, a district court must strictly construe removal jurisdiction. Id. (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)). If federal jurisdiction is in doubt, remand to state court is necessary. Id. Where, as here, the defendant bases subject matter jurisdiction on the presence of a federal question, the court must evaluate the plaintiff’s complaint filed in a state court to determine if federal question jurisdiction is present. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986).
Plaintiff states he has alleged solely state law claims in the instant action and seeks aremand of this action to state court. Defendant does not oppose a remand. As is appears this court does not have federal question jurisdiction, the court concludes that this action must be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Newberry County.
Weddle v. BAYER AG CORPORATION, Dist. Court, SD California 2012 – Google Scholar.
This is a decision of a district court in Southern California. The court holds that the heightened pleading standards set forth in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) do not apply to affirmative defenses.
An affirmative defense is a defense raised in the answer of a defendant. The defendant first answers (denies or admits) the allegations in the complaint. Then the defendant may add affirmative defenses that defeat plaintiff’s claim. A classic affirmative defense is that the statute of limitations has expired. Thus, even if what plaintiff said in his complaint was true, plaintiff would still lose because he filed his case after the deadline ran.
The court noted that Rule 8(c), which governs affirmative defenses, requires only the the defendant “affirmatively state” any affirmative defense. In the court’s view, the purpose of an affirmative defense is to place the plaintiff on notice of the defense. It is not designed to lay out the defendant’s position in detail.
Comment: there will certainly be more discussions of this issue in the future. I will try to flag these issues and discuss them in this blog.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.