Saliba v. Martinez Refining Company LLC

Background

The court considered plaintiffs’ motions to strike affirmative defenses in three related cases against Martinez Refining Company LLC. The opinion states that the cases are coordinated with other related cases before the court for common issues.

The defendant owns and operates an oil refinery that processes crude oil into gasoline and jet fuel. The refinery is surrounded by residential properties. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant emits large quantities of particulate matter because of its operations and ongoing safety failures. Their complaints assert five California-law causes of action: negligence, public and private nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

The plaintiffs asked the court to strike 19 of the 25 affirmative defenses in the defendant’s answers. They argued that 10 defenses did not include enough facts to be plausible and that nine were not affirmative defenses at all.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. An affirmative defense is insufficiently pleaded if it does not give the opposing party fair notice of the defense’s nature. The court also explained that motions to strike are disfavored and should not be granted when the alleged deficiency is not clearly apparent. A court deciding such a motion may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issues.

Court’s analysis

The plaintiffs argued that 10 defenses were boilerplate and failed to satisfy the pleading standard associated with Twombly and Iqbal. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit has not definitively decided whether that standard applies to affirmative defenses. Relying on its prior analysis, the court concluded that the defendant’s boilerplate defenses were not so clearly insufficient that they failed to provide fair notice. The court also declined to strike those defenses without a showing that doing so would meaningfully streamline the litigation. It therefore denied the motions to the extent they relied on the defendant’s failure to plead sufficient supporting facts.

The plaintiffs separately argued that nine defenses were not affirmative defenses because they either directly challenged the plaintiffs’ ability to prove their claims, such as causation, or did not preclude liability, such as a defense concerning recovery of attorneys’ fees. The court agreed. It explained that a defense showing only that a plaintiff has not met the plaintiff’s burden of proof is not an affirmative defense. The court struck those defenses without leave to amend, while noting that the defendant could still challenge whether the plaintiffs stated valid claims by motion or at trial.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to strike in all three cases. It struck Martinez Refining Company LLC’s Affirmative Defenses 1–3, 18–20, and 23–25, without leave to amend. It otherwise denied the motions in their entirety. The order addressed the motions to strike and did not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.