MLW Media LLC v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 MLW MEDIA LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00179-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO 10 v. FILE AMENDED ANSWER

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 101 12 Defendants.

14 Plaintiff, MLW Media LLC (“MLW”), brings a motion to strike Defendant, World 15 Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.’s (“WWE”), affirmative defenses filed in response to MLW’s suit 16 for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act; intentional interference with prospective economic 17 advantage; intentional interference with contractual relations; and violation of California's Unfair 18 Competition Law. Mot. to Strike Answer to Am. Compl. (“Mot. Strike”), ECF No. 101; Answer 19 to Am. Compl. (“Answer”), ECF No. 98. WWE filed an opposition, and MLW filed a reply. 20 Opp’n, ECF No. 102; Reply, ECF No. 103. In the alternative to granting MLW’s motion to strike, 21 WWE asked the Court to terminate MLW’s motion as moot and grant leave to file its amended 22 answer attached as Exhibit A. Ex. A, ECF No. 102-1. The Court finds the motion appropriate for 23 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, 24 the Court will terminate MLW’s motion to strike and grant leave for WWE to file its amended 25 answer on the condition that it remove the improper sixth amended affirmative defense for unjust 26 enrichment. 27 Case No.: 5:22-cv-00179-EJD I. BACKGROUND 1 MLW filed this action in January 2022, asserting claims against WWE for monopolization 2 and attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; 3 intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; intentional interference with 4 contractual relations; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & 5 Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 53–81. MLW filed a First 6 Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 64 (“FAC”); see also Order 7 Den. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 78. WWE filed its answer to MLW’s FAC on August 14, 2023, 8 and on August 25, 2023, MLW filed its present motion to strike the fourteen affirmative defenses 9 contained in WWE’s answer. See Answer; Mot. Strike. While WWE argues that its affirmative 10 defenses were properly asserted, in the alternative to granting MLW’s motion, WWE asks the 11 Court to terminate MLW’s motion to strike as moot and grant leave to file its amended answer. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to “strike from a pleading an 14 insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “The 15 function of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that will 16 arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Solis v. Zenith 17 Capital, LLC, No. 08–cv–4854–PJH, 2009 WL 1324051, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2009) (citing 18 Sidney–Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983)). Courts in this district, 19 including this Court, have generally applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard to striking 20 affirmative defenses. See Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corp., No. 5:19-CV-06771-EJD, 21 2020 WL 1503685, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020) (collecting cases). When a court strikes 22 an affirmative defense, leave to amend should be freely given so long as there is no prejudice to 23 the moving party. Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Lopez 25 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation omitted). 26 27 Case No.: 5:22-cv-00179-EJD I. DISCUSSION The Court grants WWE’s request for leave to file its amended answer and terminates MLW’s motion to strike as moot. While MLW identified numerous deficiencies in WWE’s ° affirmative defenses, the Court finds that WWE’s proposed amended answer cures nearly all deficiencies. See Ex. A. First, several of WWE’s original “affirmative defenses” were improper ° as a matter of law, as they merely sought to demonstrate that MLW has not met its burden of ° proof. WWE’s amended answer cures these deficiencies by removing “affirmative defenses” 1, 2, ’ 5, 8, and 12. Second, WWE’s remaining original affirmative defenses were improperly asserted, ° as they contained no facts to provide MLW with notice of the basis for the defenses. WWE’s ° amended answer cures these deficiencies by adding facts sufficient to plausibly claim affirmative 0 defenses 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9. " However, the Court finds the sixth affirmative defense for unjust enrichment in the E amended answer improper. This issue concerns damages and is reserved for the remedies stage of ° proceedings. The Court also finds the “Reservation of Rights” section improper, as it is not in S itself a defense and “serves no real purpose in litigation.” Solis, 2009 WL 2022343, at *3; see also, e.g., Goobich, 2020 WL 1503685, at * 4 (“This type of statement serves no real purpose in 5 the litigation and should be stricken.”’) (internal quotations omitted); J&J Sports Prods v. Mendoza = —Govan, No. 10-cv-05123, 2011 WL 1544886 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011), at *6 (‘An attempt to reserve affirmative defenses for a future date is not a proper affirmative defense in itself.”). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court TERMINATES MLW’s motion to strike as moot and GRANTS WWE’s request to file its amended answer so long as it removes the improper sixth affirmative defense for unjust enrichment and “Reservation of Rights” section. °° IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 31, 2023

26 EDWARD J. DAVILA 97 United States District Judge Case No.: 5:22-cv-00179-EJD 28 || ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER .