BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated

Opinion

WO

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP (“BBK”) has filed a Motion to Strike twelve of Defendant Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated’s affirmative defenses (the “Motion”). (Doc. 78.) The Court has reviewed the briefs and will issue its decision in this Order. Oral argument has been requested but it is not necessary to aid the decisional process. A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., should rarely be granted and the decision to do so is vested in the Court’s discretion. See Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., No. 15-CV-02587-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 3457899, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2016). This judge agrees with the legal standard for affirmative defenses that Judge Teilborg applied in a substantially similar order issued in BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Skunk Incorporated, No. 18-CV-02332-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 6065782 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2019). That is, the affirmative defense must provide the plaintiff with “fair notice.” Id. at *1. “Thus, contrary to BBK’s position, courts in this district have consistently declined to apply the heightened ‘plausibility’ standard coined in Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative 1 defenses.” Jd. Judge Teilborg’s ruling, which involves the same plaintiff in this case, carefully and thoroughly analyzed the Ninth Circuit and District of Arizona authorities on this very issue. The Motion pending here offers no reason to deviate from his prior ruling. Accordingly, The Court finds that the challenged affirmative defenses provide fair notice and that BBK will not suffer prejudice moving forward. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Doc. 78) is denied. The other motions remain pending. Dated this 23rd day of March, 2021. Wichal T. Hburde i Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge

-2-