7980 Holdings, LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: September 16, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-22538
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:21-CV-22538-KING

7980 HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DE 10) (the “Motion”) filed August 2, 2021. Defendant filed its Response (DE 13) on August 12, 2021. Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time to do so has expired. This matter is ripe for review. I. LEGAL STANDARD Affirmative defenses are subject to the general pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a party “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). Rule 8 does not require a defendant to set forth detailed factual allegations, but a defendant must give the plaintiff “fair notice” of the nature of the defense and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 553 (2007). Moreover, “any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” may be stricken from any pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, motions to strike are disfavored by the courts, and an affirmative defense will be stricken only if it is insufficient as a matter of law. See Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 419 F. Supp. 992, 1000 (M.D. Fla. 1976); Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002). “A defense is insufficient as a matter of law if, on the face of the pleadings, it is patently frivolous, or if it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Anchor Hocking, 419 F. Supp.

at 1000. An affirmative defense admits to the allegations of the complaint, but avoids liability in whole or in part by introducing new allegations of excuse, justification, or other negating matters. Royal Palm Sav. Ass’n v. Pine Trace Corp., 715 F. Supp. 1416, 1420 (M.D. Fla. 1989). II. DISCUSSION On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in state court against their insurance company, Defendant, for failure to pay property damage stemming from Tropical Storm Eta. See Compl., DE 1 Ex. D. The Complaint is for breach of contract (Count I) and declaratory relief (Count II). Id. On July 16, 2021, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal, alleging diversity jurisdiction. DE 1. In its Answer, Defendant asserts fourteen affirmative defenses. See DE 8. Now, Plaintiff

seeks to strike thirteen of the fourteen affirmative defenses. See Mot. Plaintiff states the defenses “fail to set forth any facts to show that the Defendant is entitled to rely on the Affirmative Defense claimed or has any factual basis.” Id. at 2. In its Response, Defendant argues the affirmative defenses are sufficiently plead and briefly discusses each affirmative defense. Id. 6–9. Further, Defendant points out that Plaintiff failed to confer with Defense counsel in accordance with the local rules. Resp. at 3. Upon careful consideration of the Motion to Strike, Response, the pleadings, and the applicable standard of law, the Court finds the Motion should be denied. Insofar as Plaintiff’s Motion argues that the affirmative defenses lack factual support, the Motion is premature until completion of discovery. On a separate note, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 8) on July 28, 2021. On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Count II of its Complaint See DE 12. Therefore, Count II is dismissed and the Motion to Dismiss (DE 8) denied as moot. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (DE 10) be, and the same is, hereby DENIED without prejudice; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 8) be, and the same is, hereby DENIED as moot; and 3. Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida dated this 16th day of September, 2021.

_oHION ORABLE JAMES LAWRENCE IXG fewer UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE i ce: All Counsel of Record