Pertz v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:19-cv-06330
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pertz v. Heartland Realty, Judge Breyer granted Pertz’s motion to strike Heartland’s 32 unsupported defenses, allowing amendment of defenses struck without prejudice.
Sarah Pertz and the Heartland entities affected by the striking of Heartland’s affirmative defenses.
What happened
In Pertz v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc., Sarah Pertz asked the court to remove 32 defenses asserted by Heartland Realty Investors and Heartland Santa Rosa Limited Partnership. The court found that none had factual support, and several were not legally proper defenses.
The court struck all 32 defenses. It struck defenses that merely challenged the complaint, denied liability, or reserved the right to add more defenses later with prejudice. The other defenses were struck without prejudice, so Heartland could try to amend its answer to preserve them.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Pertz’s motion to strike and vacated the scheduled hearing. The court did not decide Pertz’s alternative argument that some defenses did not apply to the claims.
The detailed version
- Pertz v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-06330
- Charles Breyer
- Jan. 8, 2020
Background
Heartland Realty Investors, Inc. and Heartland Santa Rosa Limited Partnership, collectively called “Heartland” in the opinion, filed an answer asserting 32 affirmative defenses. Sarah Pertz moved to strike those defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Legal standard
An affirmative defense is a matter outside the plaintiff’s initial claim that could defeat recovery even if the complaint’s allegations are true. A statement that merely denies liability or says the plaintiff has not proved the claim is not an affirmative defense. The court applied the standard that defenses must include enough factual matter to state a plausible defense. Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike an insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous defense from a pleading.
When a court strikes an affirmative defense, it generally should allow amendment when doing so would not prejudice the moving party.
Court’s analysis
The court held that all 32 of Heartland’s defenses lacked factual allegations and were therefore insufficiently pleaded. In addition, the court found that Heartland’s first, twelfth, twentieth, and thirty-first defenses merely challenged the sufficiency of Pertz’s complaint; its second, eighth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-seventh defenses merely denied liability; and its thirty-second defense improperly reserved the right to assert additional defenses later. These were not affirmative defenses.
Because it struck the defenses for insufficient pleading or because they were not actually affirmative defenses, the court did not address Pertz’s alternative argument that some defenses were inapplicable to the claims in the complaint.
Disposition
The court granted Pertz’s motion to strike Heartland’s affirmative defenses. The defenses that were not actually affirmative defenses were stricken with prejudice. All other affirmative defenses were stricken without prejudice. Heartland was granted leave to amend its answer to try to preserve defenses struck without prejudice. The court also vacated the hearing because it found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.