Pertz v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc.

Background

The court had previously struck 32 affirmative defenses in the answer filed by Heartland Realty Investors, Inc. and Heartland Santa Rosa Limited Partnership, which the opinion collectively calls “Heartland.” The court had found that the defenses lacked factual support and that many were not affirmative defenses. Heartland then filed an amended answer containing 11 affirmative defenses.

Sarah Pertz moved to strike the amended defenses. Heartland argued that it could not plead additional facts to show that it did not know or did not do something. The opinion states that this argument concerned defenses challenging Heartland’s vicarious liability for alleged wrongs by defendant Cornell Holiday.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) requires a party to state an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense raises facts that could defeat the plaintiff’s right to recover even if the complaint’s allegations are true. Allegations that merely deny liability or assert that the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof are not affirmative defenses.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike an insufficient defense from a pleading. The court explained that, although the Ninth Circuit has used a “fair notice” standard, this court and most courts in the district apply the pleading standard from Twombly and Iqbal. Under that standard, an affirmative defense must include enough factual matter to make the defense plausible on its face.

Ruling

The court held that all 11 of Heartland’s amended affirmative defenses lacked sufficient factual allegations. Three defenses substantially repeated defenses that the court had already found inadequately pleaded. The court also concluded that other defenses merely denied liability and therefore were not affirmative defenses.

Because the court had already allowed Heartland to amend its defenses and Heartland failed to adequately plead them on its second attempt, the court struck the amended affirmative defenses with prejudice. It granted Pertz’s motion to strike with prejudice and did not address Pertz’s alternative arguments.