Comin v. International Business Machines Corporation

Background

Mark Comin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike all 22 affirmative defenses in IBM’s answer. An affirmative defense is a defense that accepts, for purposes of argument, that the plaintiff has stated a claim but asserts an additional reason why the defendant should not be held liable. Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike an insufficient defense. The court noted that such motions are disfavored and applied a standard requiring a defense to describe its general nature well enough to notify the plaintiff of the defense.

Defenses the Court Kept

The court did not strike defense 2, which asserted that some or all putative class members’ claims were barred by statutes of limitations. The statutes cited, the filing date, and the alleged period of injury gave Comin enough notice of that defense.

The court also did not strike defense 14, which asserted that certain statutes were unconstitutionally vague, or defense 15, which asserted that IBM had paid its employees all wages owed. The court treated each as a potentially valid affirmative defense that was adequately identified.

Defenses the Court Struck

The court struck defenses 6 through 11 because they addressed whether a class could be certified under Rule 23 rather than providing defenses to liability. The court emphasized that striking these defenses was a technical step and did not prevent IBM from opposing a later request for class certification.

The court struck defenses 1, 16, 17, and 19 because they asserted that Comin could not establish elements of his claims. These included assertions that the complaint failed to state a claim, that Comin could not show a contract, that IBM had discretion to determine plaintiffs’ wages, and that IBM had not violated the California Unfair Competition Law. The court stated that IBM could raise substantively similar points at an appropriate time, subject to the court’s comment concerning unjustified reconsideration of its earlier dismissal order.

The court also struck defenses 3, 4, 12, 20, 21, and 22 because they referred to legal doctrines without explaining their relevance or suggested that IBM might later discover grounds for a defense. Defense 18 was stricken because, although it asserted that IBM had clearly and fully notified Comin and putative class members about its commission policies and practices, it did not clearly identify the legal basis for treating those notifications as a defense to Comin’s remaining California Unfair Competition Law and breach-of-contract claims.

Finally, the court struck defense 5, which asserted a lack of Article III standing, and defense 13, which asserted a lack of statutory standing under the California Unfair Competition Law. The court explained that Article III standing concerns subject-matter jurisdiction and is not a true affirmative defense. It similarly concluded that statutory standing concerns whether a plaintiff has a cause of action and must be established in the complaint.

Disposition

The court stated that all of IBM’s defenses other than 2, 14, and 15 were stricken. Leave to amend was granted for defenses 3, 4, 12, 18, 20, 21, and 22. The defenses stricken without leave to amend could not be included in the answer as currently pleaded, but the court stated that IBM could present the same substantive arguments later when warranted by the record. IBM could file an amended answer by July 16, 2021, and could seek permission to file one later if new facts uncovered in discovery revealed grounds for an affirmative defense. Judge James Ponato stated that the ruling did not meaningfully affect the underlying dispute.