Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cabrera v. Alvarez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 18, 2013

LORENA CABRERA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HENRY ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

Currently before this Court is plaintiffs' motion to strike 47 out of 49 of defendants' affirmative defenses. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 21, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs in this action are Lorena Cabrera, a native Spanish speaker with limited English proficiency, and her two sons, six-year-old Uriel Cabrera and two-year-old Dionisio Cabrera. Plaintiffs were tenants of the Robert Pitts Development ("Pitts Development"), a low-income housing project located at 1151 Scott Street, San Francisco, California, from August 2010 to September 2012. Compl. ¶¶ 6-8, 28, 28-29, 33-35. Pitts Development is owned and operated by the San Francisco Housing Authority (the "SFHA"), a public corporation funded in part by the federal government and created pursuant to the California Health & Safety Code §§ 34240 et seq. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 28. Defendant Philip Tam is an employee of the SFHA and the property manager of Pitts Development. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.

Plaintiffs allege the SFHA never provided language translation services despite numerous requests. Id. at ¶ 30. Due to the unaddressed language barrier, plaintiffs allege they could not effectively convey the habitability problems to the Pitts Development management or the SFHA, and therefore have been unable to resolve most of the problems. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiffs assert that while living in the rental unit they were the victims of "rodent, bedbug and cockroach infestation, mold, leaky faucets, a leaking toilet, raw sewage backup in the sinks, toilets and outside the unit, broken plaster, tiles and nails protruding from the stairs, and a defective shower." Id. at ¶ 36. Plaintiffs allege that when they successfully conveyed a problem to Pitts Development management, including directly to Defendant Tam, the problem was never addressed. Id. at ¶¶ 40, 42. Plaintiffs assert that Uriel and Dionisio Cabrera suffer from asthma, and the failure to provide language translation services as well as the unremedied living conditions exacerbated their asthma symptoms, causing Dionisio Cabrera at one point to be hospitalized. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32, 43.

On September 19, 2012, plaintiffs filed this action, asserting claims against defendants for providing substandard and uninhabitable housing, and for failing to provide translation services so plaintiffs could communicate on equal footing with Pitts Development management and the SFHA. Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint on May 1, 2013. On May 17, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike 47 out of the 49 affirmative defenses in defendants' Answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

An answer must "state in short and plain terms" the defenses to each claim asserted against the defendant in order to provide plaintiffs with fair notice of the defense(s). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(A). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), an "affirmative defense is a defense that does not negate the elements of the plaintiff's claim, but instead precludes liability even if all of the elements of the plaintiff's claim are proven.'" Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan - Nonbargained Program, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1171-72 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting Roberge v. Hannah Marine Corp., 1997 WL 468330, at *3 (6th Cir. 1997)). Defendants bear the burden of proof for affirmative defenses. Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1988).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court may, on its own or on a motion, "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). A defense may be insufficient "as a matter of pleading or as a matter of substance." Security People, Inc. v. Classic Woodworking, LLC, No. C-04-3133 MMC, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2005). An insufficiently pled defense fails to comply with Rule 8 pleading requirements by not providing "plaintiff [with] fair notice of the nature of the defense" and the grounds upon which it rests. Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957)). See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. However, motions to strike are generally disfavored. Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001). When a claim is stricken, "leave to amend should be freely given" so long as no prejudice results against the opposing party. Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 826.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs make two overarching arguments: (1) the Court should strike roughly half of the affirmative defenses at issue since they are actually negative defenses and therefore improper and (2) the Court should strike the other half of the affirmative defenses at issue since they lack specificity, are conclusory, are generally insufficient under the Twombly/Iqbal standard and therefore fail to provide plaintiffs with fair notice.

In response defendants proffer two general arguments: (1) motions to strike are disfavored; and (2) the heightened pleading standard articulated in Twombly and Iqbal does not apply to affirmative defenses, therefore, the Court should not strike any of the defenses.

I. Negative Defenses Pled as Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiffs argue the 6th, 14th-16th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, 26th, 29th, 33rd, 35th, 44th, and 45th Affirmative Defenses, are actually negative defenses, and therefore should be struck. Docket No. 39. Any "defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense." Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court finds that these defenses are actually negative defenses improperly pled as affirmative defenses. For example, the 14th Affirmative Defense alleges "that reasonable cause does not exist to believe ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.