Howarth v. Patterson

Opinion

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

9 Morgan Howarth, No. CV-19-00726-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Patterson, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses” 17 (Doc. 111). The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Response (Doc. 112) and Plaintiff’s 18 Reply (Doc. 116). For the reasons explained herein, the Motion (Doc. 111) will be granted. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the court to “strike from a pleading 21 an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” 22 The purpose of a motion to strike “is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must 23 arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial[.]” 24 Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). “Motions to 25 strike are generally viewed with disfavor and are not frequently granted.” Lazar v. Trans 26 Union LLC, 195 F.R.D. 665, 669 (C.D. Cal. 2000). 27 28 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. First Affirmative Defense 3 Defendants’ first affirmative defense asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. 4 (Doc. 105 at 4-5). As discussed in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 38), “[a] defense which 5 demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” 6 Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). “Failure to state 7 a claim is not a proper affirmative defense but, rather, asserts a defect in [Plaintiff’s] prima 8 facie case.” Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 9 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 10 111) as to Defendants’ first affirmative defense. 11 B. Sixth Affirmative Defense 12 Defendants’ sixth affirmative defense asserts that “Plaintiff’s claims are barred 13 because Plaintiff has not sustained any actual damages or injury, and Plaintiff therefore 14 lacks standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 105 at 8). The 15 Court finds persuasive Plaintiff’s argument and cited authority that Defendants’ sixth 16 affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 111) will be 17 granted as to Defendants’ sixth affirmative defense. 18 C. Seventh Affirmative Defense 19 Defendants’ seventh affirmative defense asserts that “Plaintiff’s claim may be 20 barred by the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 105 at 9). Defendants contend that 21 Plaintiff is a “copyright troll” and assert that “copyright trolling is unconstitutional because 22 it provides no credible incentive ‘to authors’ and does nothing to promote the progress of 23 science and the useful arts.” (Id. at 11) (emphasis in omitted). The Court finds persuasive 24 Plaintiff’s argument and cited authority that Defendants’ seventh affirmative defense is 25 insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 111) will be granted as to 26 Defendants’ seventh affirmative defense. 27 III. CONCLUSION 28 IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses” 1}| (Doc. 111). 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Defendants’ first, sixth, and seventh 3|| affirmative defenses from Defendants’ Answer to the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 4}; 105). 5 Dated this 7th day of April, 2020. 6

8 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-