BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated

D. Arizona

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated

DecidedMarch 23, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-05216

StatusUnknown

This text of BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated (BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION

12 Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP (“BBK”) has filed a Motion to Strike twelve 16 of Defendant Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated’s affirmative defenses (the 17 “Motion”). (Doc. 78.) The Court has reviewed the briefs and will issue its decision in this 18 Order. Oral argument has been requested but it is not necessary to aid the decisional 19 process. 20 A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., should rarely be granted 21 and the decision to do so is vested in the Court’s discretion. See Craten v. Foster Poultry 22 Farms Inc., No. 15-CV-02587-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 3457899, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 24, 23 2016). This judge agrees with the legal standard for affirmative defenses that Judge 24 Teilborg applied in a substantially similar order issued in BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. 25 Skunk Incorporated, No. 18-CV-02332-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 6065782 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 26 2019). That is, the affirmative defense must provide the plaintiff with “fair notice.” Id. at 27 *1. “Thus, contrary to BBK’s position, courts in this district have consistently declined to 28 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. 4 Accordingly, 5 The Court finds that the challenged affirmative defenses provide fair notice and that 6|| 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. 8 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2021. 9 Wichal T. Hburde i Michael T. Liburdi 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION

12 Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP (“BBK”) has filed a Motion to Strike twelve 16 of Defendant Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated’s affirmative defenses (the 17 “Motion”). (Doc. 78.) The Court has reviewed the briefs and will issue its decision in this 18 Order. Oral argument has been requested but it is not necessary to aid the decisional 19 process. 20 A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., should rarely be granted 21 and the decision to do so is vested in the Court’s discretion. See Craten v. Foster Poultry 22 Farms Inc., No. 15-CV-02587-PHX-DLR, 2016 WL 3457899, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 24, 23 2016). This judge agrees with the legal standard for affirmative defenses that Judge 24 Teilborg applied in a substantially similar order issued in BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. 25 Skunk Incorporated, No. 18-CV-02332-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 6065782 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 26 2019). That is, the affirmative defense must provide the plaintiff with “fair notice.” Id. at 27 *1. “Thus, contrary to BBK’s position, courts in this district have consistently declined to 28 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. 4 Accordingly, 5 The Court finds that the challenged affirmative defenses provide fair notice and that 6|| 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. 8 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2021. 9 Wichal T. Hburde i Michael T. Liburdi 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bbk-tobacco-foods-llp-v-central-coast-agriculture-incorporated-azd-2021.