Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC

W.D. Washington

Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC

DecidedApril 18, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00112

StatusUnknown

This text of Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC (Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 DENA SOLT, Case No. C24-112-RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE 11 v. DEFENSES CSA AMERICA TESTING & 12 CERTIFICATION LLC d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign limited liability company, CSA 13 AMERICA STANDARDS, INC. d/b/a CSA AMERICA STANDARDS, a foreign 14 nonprofit corporation, CSA AMERICA INC., a foreign corporation, and CSA 15 CANDA INC., d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign corporation, 16 Defendants.

18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dena Solt (“Plaintiff”)’s “Motion to 19 Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #12. Defendants CSA America Testing & 20 Certification LLC and CSA America Standards, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the Motion, 21 requesting that the Court deny it or grant it with leave to amend. Dkt. #15. The Court GRANTS 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for the reasons set forth below. 23 An affirmative defense must be pled in such a way that plaintiffs have “fair notice” of the 24 defense, which generally requires that defendants state the nature and grounds for the affirmative 1 defense. See Employee Painters’ Trust v. Pac. Nw. Contractors, Inc., 2013 WL 1774628, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). 2 Defendants list twenty-one affirmative defenses in their Answer. See Dkt. #15 at 17-23. 3 Plaintiff refutes the following defenses in her Motion: (1) whether Defendants’ First (Laches), 4 Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), and Fifth (Unclean Hands) Equitable Affirmative Defenses 5 provide fair notice as to which claims they apply to and whether they are appropriate defenses; 6 (2) whether Defendants’ Fourth (Consent), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), 7 Sixteenth (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or 8 Superseding Cause) Affirmative Defenses apply to any of Plaintiff’s claims; and (3) whether 9 there is any legal difference between Defendants’ Eleventh (Avoidable Consequences) and 10 Twelfth (Failure to Mitigate) Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. #12 at 2. 11 First, Defendants stipulate that the Fourth Affirmative Defense (Consent) does not apply 12 to Plaintiff’s minimum wage claim. Dkt. #15 at 6, n.2. Defendants also withdraw their Eleventh 13 Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Consequences) stipulating to Plaintiff’s third challenge listed 14 above. Id. 15 Second, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ affirmative defenses and finds that they do 16 not provide adequate notice to Plaintiff because they do not state the nature and grounds for 17 asserting the defense. Many of Defendants’ defenses appear copied and pasted word-for-word. 18 See gen. id. Other than a few sparse examples, “Defendants do not . . . plead which of [Plaintiff’s] 19 causes of action these equitable defenses might apply to, nor do they include any factual 20 allegations concerning these defenses.” Tollefson v. Aurora Fin. Grp., Inc., 2021 WL 462689, 21 at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2021) (citing to Seattlehaunts, LLC v. Thomas Family Farm, LLC, 22 2020 WL 5500373, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 11, 2020). Accordingly, the Court will strike 23 Defendants’ First (Laches), Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), Fourth (Consent), Fifth (Unclean 24 1 Hands), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), Sixteenth (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or Superseding Cause) Affirmative 2 Defenses. Defendants request leave to amend their Answer, and the Court finds that such leave 3 should be given under these circumstances. 4 Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and 5 the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 6 1) The following affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answer are STRICKEN: 7 Defendants’ First (Laches), Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), Fourth (Consent), 8 Fifth (Unclean Hands), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), Sixteenth 9 (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or 10 Superseding Cause) Affirmative Defenses. 11 2) Defendant’ Eleventh Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Causes) is STRICKEN, as 12 stipulated by Defendants. 13 3) Defendants’ Fourth Affirmative Defense (Consent) does not apply to Plaintiff’s 14 minimum wage claim, as stipulated by Defendants. 15 4) Defendants are granted leave to file an amended Answer curing the above-mentioned 16 deficiencies no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 17

18 DATED this 18th day of April, 2024. 19 20 A 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 DENA SOLT, Case No. C24-112-RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE 11 v. DEFENSES CSA AMERICA TESTING & 12 CERTIFICATION LLC d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign limited liability company, CSA 13 AMERICA STANDARDS, INC. d/b/a CSA AMERICA STANDARDS, a foreign 14 nonprofit corporation, CSA AMERICA INC., a foreign corporation, and CSA 15 CANDA INC., d/b/a CSA GROUP, a foreign corporation, 16 Defendants.

18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dena Solt (“Plaintiff”)’s “Motion to 19 Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, Dkt. #12. Defendants CSA America Testing & 20 Certification LLC and CSA America Standards, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the Motion, 21 requesting that the Court deny it or grant it with leave to amend. Dkt. #15. The Court GRANTS 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for the reasons set forth below. 23 An affirmative defense must be pled in such a way that plaintiffs have “fair notice” of the 24 defense, which generally requires that defendants state the nature and grounds for the affirmative 1 defense. See Employee Painters’ Trust v. Pac. Nw. Contractors, Inc., 2013 WL 1774628, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). 2 Defendants list twenty-one affirmative defenses in their Answer. See Dkt. #15 at 17-23. 3 Plaintiff refutes the following defenses in her Motion: (1) whether Defendants’ First (Laches), 4 Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), and Fifth (Unclean Hands) Equitable Affirmative Defenses 5 provide fair notice as to which claims they apply to and whether they are appropriate defenses; 6 (2) whether Defendants’ Fourth (Consent), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), 7 Sixteenth (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or 8 Superseding Cause) Affirmative Defenses apply to any of Plaintiff’s claims; and (3) whether 9 there is any legal difference between Defendants’ Eleventh (Avoidable Consequences) and 10 Twelfth (Failure to Mitigate) Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. #12 at 2. 11 First, Defendants stipulate that the Fourth Affirmative Defense (Consent) does not apply 12 to Plaintiff’s minimum wage claim. Dkt. #15 at 6, n.2. Defendants also withdraw their Eleventh 13 Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Consequences) stipulating to Plaintiff’s third challenge listed 14 above. Id. 15 Second, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ affirmative defenses and finds that they do 16 not provide adequate notice to Plaintiff because they do not state the nature and grounds for 17 asserting the defense. Many of Defendants’ defenses appear copied and pasted word-for-word. 18 See gen. id. Other than a few sparse examples, “Defendants do not . . . plead which of [Plaintiff’s] 19 causes of action these equitable defenses might apply to, nor do they include any factual 20 allegations concerning these defenses.” Tollefson v. Aurora Fin. Grp., Inc., 2021 WL 462689, 21 at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2021) (citing to Seattlehaunts, LLC v. Thomas Family Farm, LLC, 22 2020 WL 5500373, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 11, 2020). Accordingly, the Court will strike 23 Defendants’ First (Laches), Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), Fourth (Consent), Fifth (Unclean 24 1 Hands), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), Sixteenth (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or Superseding Cause) Affirmative 2 Defenses. Defendants request leave to amend their Answer, and the Court finds that such leave 3 should be given under these circumstances. 4 Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and 5 the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 6 1) The following affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answer are STRICKEN: 7 Defendants’ First (Laches), Second (Waiver), Third (Estoppel), Fourth (Consent), 8 Fifth (Unclean Hands), Thirteenth (Not Knowing, Willful, or Intentional), Sixteenth 9 (No Respondeat Superior Liability), and Twentieth (Independent, Intervening, or 10 Superseding Cause) Affirmative Defenses. 11 2) Defendant’ Eleventh Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Causes) is STRICKEN, as 12 stipulated by Defendants. 13 3) Defendants’ Fourth Affirmative Defense (Consent) does not apply to Plaintiff’s 14 minimum wage claim, as stipulated by Defendants. 15 4) Defendants are granted leave to file an amended Answer curing the above-mentioned 16 deficiencies no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 17

18 DATED this 18th day of April, 2024. 19 20 A 21 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Solt v. CSA America Testing & Certification LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solt-v-csa-america-testing-certification-llc-wawd-2024.