Ochoa v. City of San Jose

Background

Yuridia Ochoa brought a civil-rights case concerning San Jose Police Department officer conduct related to her arrest. Her claims included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims involving unreasonable post-arrest medical care, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The defendants were the City of San Jose and San Jose Police Department Officer Eric Mosunic.

The City and Officer Mosunic each filed an amended answer containing eight affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a legal reason a defendant says it should not be held liable even if the plaintiff proves the basic allegations. The challenged defenses asserted immunity under listed California Government Code and Penal Code provisions, but they did not include factual allegations or explanations showing how those provisions applied.

Ruling

Ochoa moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to strike an insufficient defense or other improper matter from a pleading. The defendants argued that affirmative defenses require only fair notice and that the statutory citations were adequate in light of Ochoa’s complaint.

The court granted Ochoa’s motion. It held that the plausibility standard generally applies to affirmative defenses and that, in any event, the challenged defenses provided neither fair notice nor a plausible basis for the claimed immunities because they contained no supporting facts. The court also ruled that Ochoa did not need to show prejudice to obtain striking of the defenses.

The court separately held that California statutory immunities could not apply to Ochoa’s federal claims. The defendants agreed with that point, so the challenged defenses were stricken to the extent they purported to apply to those claims, without leave to amend.

For the state-law claims, the court considered whether amendment would be futile. It concluded that the defendants might be able to plead facts supporting defenses under California Government Code sections 820.2, 820.4, 820.8, and 821.6. Ochoa therefore had not shown that amendment of those defenses would be futile.

Disposition

The court ordered that the City’s sixth and seventh affirmative defenses and Officer Mosunic’s seventh and eighth affirmative defenses were stricken without leave to amend to the extent they were alleged to apply to Ochoa’s federal claims. Otherwise, those defenses were stricken with leave to amend. The City and Officer Mosunic were ordered to file amended answers within 30 days of the order.