Automated Systems of Tacoma LLC v. Steris Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 AUTOMATED SYSTEMS OF CASE NO. C24-01028JLR TACOMA LLC, 11 ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v.

13 STERIS CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Automated Systems of Tacoma LLC’s (“Automated 16 Systems”) second Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) motion to strike Defendant Steris 17 Corporation’s (“Steris”) affirmative defenses. (2d MTS (Dkt. # 54); Reply (Dkt. # 56); 18 see Am. Answer (Dkt. # 52).) Steris opposes Automated Systems’s motion. (Resp. (Dkt. 19 # 55).) The court has reviewed the parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the 20 record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Automated 21 Systems’s motion. 22 1 Steris answered Automated Systems’s second amended complaint on February 3, 2 2026, and asserted affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. (Answer (Dkt. # 47).)

3 Rather than answer the counterclaim, Automated Systems moved on February 24, 2026, 4 to strike Steris’s affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim, fair use, “not likely to 5 cause mistake, confusion, or deception[,]” priority, fraud, and failure to mitigate 6 damages. (1st MTS (Dkt. # 51).) Ten days later, Steris filed its amended answer, 7 affirmative defenses, and counterclaim. (See Am. Answer.) Because Steris amended its 8 answer fewer than 21 days after Automated Systems filed its Rule 12(f) motion, the court

9 struck Automated Systems’s first motion to strike without prejudice to renewing its 10 motion based on Steris’s amended answer. (3/9/26 Order (Dkt. # 53) (citing Fed. R. Civ. 11 P. 15(a)(1)(B)).) 12 Automated Systems now moves to strike Steris’s affirmative defenses of waiver 13 and acquiescence. (See generally 2d MTS.) Steris argues that the court should deny

14 Automated Systems’s second motion to strike because (1) its pleading provides 15 Automated Systems fair notice of its waiver and acquiescence affirmative defenses and 16 (2) the motion is untimely. (See generally Resp.) The court agrees on both grounds. 17 The court addresses the question of timeliness first. Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 15(a)(3) provides that, “[u]nless the court orders otherwise, any required

19 response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to 20 the original pleading or within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever 21 is later.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2) (stating the court may 22 act on a motion to strike that is “made by a party either before responding to the pleading, 1 or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading”). 2 Here, Steris filed its amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim on March

3 6, 2026, but Automated Systems did not answer or respond to the amended pleading until 4 21 days thereafter. (See generally Dkt.) The court has reviewed Automated Systems’s 5 arguments regarding the timeliness of its motion and does not find them persuasive. (See 6 Reply at 5-7.) Accordingly, the court denies Automated Systems’s second motion to 7 strike as untimely. 8 Even if the motion were timely, the court would deny it on the merits. Under Rule

9 12(f), a district court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 10 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The 11 purpose of Rule 12(f) is to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from 12 litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]” Whittlestone, 13 Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “Rule 12(f)

14 motions to strike are generally disfavored because the motions may be used as delay 15 tactics and because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits.” White v. Univ. 16 of Washington, No. C22-1798TL, 2023 WL 3582395, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2023) 17 (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “where [a] motion [to strike] may have the effect of 18 making the trial of the action less complicated, or have the effect of otherwise

19 streamlining the ultimate resolution of the action, the motion to strike will be well taken.” 20 California ex rel. State Lands Comm’n v. United States, 512 F. Supp. 36, 38 (N.D. Cal. 21 1981) (citation omitted). 22 1 An affirmative defense is insufficiently pleaded under Rule 12(f) if it fails to 2 provide the plaintiff “fair notice” of the defense asserted. Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607

3 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). Fair notice “only requires describing the 4 defense in ‘general terms.’” Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 5 2015) (citation omitted). “Detailed factual allegations are not required—simply 6 ‘[p]leading enough factual content to identify the factual grounds on which an affirmative 7 defense rests is adequate to provide fair notice’ of the affirmative defenses to Plaintiff 8 and the Court.” White, 2023 WL 3582395, at *7 (quoting Rosen v. Masterpiece Mktg.

9 Grp., LLC, 222 F. Supp. 3d 793, 802 (C.D. Cal. 2016)). 10 Here, Steris pleads that: 11 [Automated Systems] is entitled to no relief under the doctrines of acquiescence, waiver and/or equitable estoppel. [Steris] has used the 12 acronym AST in connection with its sterilization services since at least as early as 2011. [Automated Systems] alleges that it has offered goods and 13 services under its AST service marks since approximately 1966 in Washington. [Automated Systems] was or should have been aware of 14 Steris’s use of the acronym AST during this allegedly overlapping period. [Automated Systems’s] inaction during that period implied that [Automated 15 Systems] would not challenge [Steris’s] use.

16 (Am. Answer at 12.) The court concludes that Steris’s pleading provides the court and 17 Automated Systems fair notice of its waiver and acquiescence affirmative defenses. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 Therefore, the court DENIES Automated Systems’s second motion to strike Steris’s 2 affirmative defenses (Dkt. # 54).

3 Dated this 20th day of April, 2026. A 4 5 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22