Chock v. Stryker Corporation
1:21-cv-00996
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff D. Malama Chock filed suit against Stryker Corporation alleging strict and negligent products liability, claiming that a surgically implanted Stryker compression plate failed and caused injuries.
- Chock moved to strike several of Stryker’s affirmative defenses as legally or factually insufficient, and also sought to have certain allegations in her complaint deemed admitted.
- Stryker opposed the motion, defending the sufficiency and legal basis for its affirmative defenses.
- The court addressed whether each challenged defense met the "fair notice" pleading standard and whether some defenses were improper as affirmative defenses under federal law.
- The procedural posture: the court reviewed the motions after the filing of the first amended complaint and answer.
- The decision partially granted and partially denied both aspects of Chock’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of affirmative defenses (statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, mitigation, comparative negligence, release, estoppel, reservation) | Many defenses lack specificity or are not proper affirmative defenses | Defenses are sufficiently pleaded and proper at this stage | Most generic defenses (first, second, tenth) stricken; others (third, fourth, eighth, ninth) survive |
| Reservation of right to assert defenses | Improper as an affirmative defense | Retained right through discovery | Stricken without leave to amend |
| Admission of corporate status | Answer insufficiently admitted status | N/A | Deemed admitted |
| "Speaks for itself" responses to allegations | Should be deemed admitted | Are conditional admissions with substance | Not deemed admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) (establishes the fair notice standard for pleading affirmative defenses)
- Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 779 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2015) (confirms continued application of fair notice standard to affirmative defenses)
- Chavez v. Glock, Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishes between strict and negligent products liability under California law)
- Shaffer v. Debbas, 17 Cal. App. 4th 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (addresses duty to mitigate damages in tort actions)