Johnson v. City of Buhl, 1:24-cv-00218

Plaintiffs allege their civil rights were violated when Buhl, Idaho police officials entered their home and tased Mr. Johnson without justification.
The incident occurred on December 21, 2023, in the presence of his wife and four-year-old daughter.
Plaintiffs brought suit, and defendants City of Buhl and Officer Engbaum answered with fifteen affirmative defenses.
Plaintiffs moved to strike or dismiss several of these defenses, arguing inadequacy of pleading and inapplicability.
The main procedural posture is a Rule 12(f) motion to strike certain affirmative defenses from the defendants’ answer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pleading Standard for Affirmative Defenses	Twombly/Iqbal heightened plausibility standard should apply	Wyshak "fair notice" standard should apply	Fair notice standard applied
Negative v. Affirmative Defenses	Negative defenses improperly pleaded as affirmative, should strike	Including them serves notice, no prejudice to keeping included	Motion to strike negative defenses denied
Blanket Immunity Pleading	Generic "immune from liability" is insufficient notice	Defendants can amend to specify immunity types if needed	Motion to strike granted with leave to amend
Unclean Hands Defense	Boilerplate claim gives no fair notice without facts	Identified sufficient facts in response brief	Motion to strike unclean hands denied
Premature Affirmative Defense	Should be stricken as not yet ripe	Conceded by defendants	Motion to strike granted without prejudice
Reservation of Rights to Add Defenses	Not a true affirmative defense, should be stricken	Superfluous but harmless	Not stricken

Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) (establishes the fair notice pleading standard for affirmative defenses)
Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) (explains purpose of Rule 12(f) motions to strike insufficient defenses)