Adams v. Jumpstart Wireless Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144659
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Plaintiff sued multiple defendants alleging she was hired as an employee to promote and sell products and that defendants failed to pay her agreed minimum wages; claims include FLSA minimum wage recovery, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 448.08.
- Defendants (four named) filed answers asserting largely identical sets of 25 (and one 26th for Nanci Bonar) affirmative defenses each.
- Plaintiff moved to strike all affirmative defenses as legally insufficient, conclusory, or not truly affirmative defenses but mere denials or shotgun pleading.
- Defendants conceded several defenses were inartfully pled and opposed striking others, arguing some defenses provided sufficient notice or were properly pleaded alternatives.
- The Court evaluated the motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Rule 8 pleading standards, considering whether defenses were true affirmative defenses, conclusory, or adequately particularized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether particular defenses are mere denials rather than affirmative defenses | Many defenses (e.g., independent contractor) are denials of elements and not affirmative defenses | Labeled defenses may be treated as pleaded denials; defendants preserved them as affirmative defenses | Court treated several defenses (Nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 19–20, 23, 26) as denials and did not strike them |
| Whether exemptions under FLSA were sufficiently pleaded | Defs must identify specific exemptions or be stricken | Defs listed several exemptions (outside salesperson, executive, administrative) and may plead inconsistent alternatives | Court allowed defenses asserting exemptions (Nos. 3 and 4) to stand |
| Whether conclusory or vague affirmative defenses must be stricken under Rule 8 | Many defenses are bare legal conclusions without facts (e.g., excuse, jurisdictional non-applicability) | Defs argued context/discovery would supply details; some defenses tied to evident facts | Court struck multiple conclusory defenses (Nos. 6, 8–9, 12–14, 16–18, 21, 24–25) with leave to replead |
| Whether failure to specify which complaint counts each defense targets constitutes strikeable shotgun pleading | Plaintiff argued defenses are shotgun and fail to identify targeted counts | Defendants noted the claims arise from a unitary set of facts and defenses relate generally to all claims | Court held failure to identify counts did not prejudice Plaintiff and refused to strike on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla.) (motions to strike are disfavored and should be denied unless matter has no possible relation to controversy)
- Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.) (motions to strike are drastic and disfavored)
- Royal Palm Sav. Ass’n v. Pine Trace Corp., 716 F. Supp. 1416 (M.D. Fla.) (definition of affirmative defense that admits complaint but asserts new matter)
- In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc. (Flav-O-Rich, Inc. v. Rawson Food Serv., Inc.), 846 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir.) (a defense pointing only to defects in plaintiff’s case is not an affirmative defense)
- Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 419 F. Supp. 992 (M.D. Fla.) (affirmative defense is insufficient only if patently frivolous or clearly invalid)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (pleading standards require enough factual matter to give fair notice)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse’s Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681 (M.D. Fla.) (conclusory affirmative defenses should be stricken)
- Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir.) (shotgun pleading doctrine and its problems)