Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions Inc

Background

Pro se plaintiff Harris Lee Winns filed at least twelve claims under federal and state law. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. filed an amended answer containing affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a defense based on additional facts or legal grounds that could defeat a claim even if the complaint’s allegations are assumed to be true.

Winns filed two motions: a motion to strike Exela’s affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court had previously granted an earlier motion to strike because Exela had not adequately opposed it, and had denied the earlier judgment-on-the-pleadings motion after allowing Exela to amend its answer. The pending motions were substantially similar to the earlier motions.

Motion to Strike

The court explained that a motion to strike may remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material from a pleading. The court generally should not resolve substantial factual or legal disputes through such a motion. It also explained that affirmative defenses must include enough facts to give the opposing party fair notice, although extensive factual allegations are not required.

The court granted Winns’s motion to strike these defenses without leave to amend:

- Number One, identified in the discussion as failure to state a claim and in the conclusion as failure to state a cause of action. The court held that failure to state a claim is not an affirmative defense, although Exela was not barred from raising a valid Rule 12 motion. - Number Four, the exclusive-remedy defense based on the California Workers’ Compensation Act. The court concluded that the defense did not preclude employees from pursuing discrimination claims. - Number Nine, privileged, good-faith, and justified conduct. The court struck the defense, while stating that Exela could still present relevant evidence of Winns’s at-will employment status. - Number Fifteen, no attorney’s fees. The court found that attorney’s fees do not preclude liability and that the defense lacked a sufficient factual basis. The ruling did not prevent Exela from challenging a future fee award.

The court granted the motion to strike with leave to amend as to:

- Number Three, equitable doctrines, including laches, consent, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands. The court found that Exela combined different defenses and did not provide enough clear factual detail to give notice of which defenses it was asserting. - Number Five, internal remedies. The court found that Exela had not provided a sufficient or plausible factual basis explaining what internal remedies were available or what they required.

The court denied the motion to strike as to the following defenses: Number Six, after-acquired evidence; Number Seven, legitimate non-discriminatory reasons; Number Eight, justified criterion; Number Ten, avoidable consequences; Number Eleven, failure to mitigate; Number Twelve, same decision; Number Thirteen, no malice, oppression, or fraud; Number Fourteen, punitive damages unconstitutional; Number Sixteen, no vicarious liability; Number Seventeen, truth; and Number Eighteen, privileged communications.

Among other reasons, the court found that the after-acquired-evidence defense could not be pleaded with specific facts before discovery, that some defenses raised factual issues not suitable for resolution on a motion to strike, and that other defenses were recognized legal defenses with sufficient notice at this stage.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court denied Winns’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It found that the motion appeared to repeat the motion the court had already denied. The court also stated that a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings when the answer raises factual issues or affirmative defenses, as Exela’s answer did. Exela was also being allowed to amend its answer again.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The order granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike and denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Exela was ordered to file a second amended answer within fourteen days. Winns was prohibited from filing another motion to strike concerning the amendments to the equitable-doctrines and internal-remedies defenses without the court’s permission, and was also prohibited from filing another motion for judgment on the pleadings without permission. The order terminated Docket Numbers 73 and 75. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.