Lister v. RTR Environmental LLC
5:19-cv-01092
W.D. Okla.Apr 21, 2020Background
- Plaintiff sued RTR Environmental alleging unpaid overtime (FLSA) and racial discrimination/retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Defendant answered and asserted multiple affirmative defenses.
- Paragraph 3 of the Answer listed numerous defenses in a shotgun manner (estoppel, release, waiver, failure to mitigate, payment, etc.).
- Paragraph 4 reserved Defendant’s right to amend and add defenses as discovery proceeds.
- Plaintiff moved to strike paragraphs 3 and 4 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), arguing the defenses are vague and violate Rules 8, 10, and 11.
- Defendant opposed, arguing Plaintiff could not show specific prejudice and that striking was premature before discovery; alternatively sought leave to amend.
- The Court granted the motion: struck paragraphs 3 and 4 as insufficiently specific and prejudicial, but allowed reassertion via a timely, compliant Rule 15/LCvR 15.1 amendment; reserved-right language was improper because amendments are governed by Rule 15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of paragraph 3 affirmative defenses | Defenses are shotgun, vague, noncompliant with pleading rules and cause prejudice | No specific prejudice shown; premature to strike before discovery; can clarify later | Struck paragraph 3 as a shotgun pleading that is not obviously applicable and prejudicial; may be reasserted in more detail by timely amendment |
| Validity of paragraph 4 reservation-to-amend clause | Reservation is improper and should be struck | Wants to reserve right to add defenses as facts develop; alternatively seeks leave to amend | Struck paragraph 4; reservation improper because Rule 15 (and LCvR 15.1) governs amendments; defendant must follow Rule 15/LCvR 15.1 to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Falley v. Friends Univ., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (D. Kan. 2011) (striking affirmative defenses is a drastic remedy; defenses must have possible relation to the controversy)
- Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 1994) (motions to strike rest within the court’s discretion)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (heightened pleading standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified and applied Twombly pleading principles)