274 F.R.D. 637
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Plaintiff moves to strike Chase Bank’s thirteen affirmative defenses; Chase withdraws its first defense.
- Twelve surviving defenses argue issues including unauthorized use, knowledge of charges, causation, damages, mitigation, and CARD Member Agreement compliance.
- Court analyzes whether the defenses are insufficient on the face of the pleadings and whether they fail to provide fair notice.
- Court considers whether Twombly and Iqbal should apply to affirmative defenses and to pleading standards for them.
- Court concludes the twelve defenses are insufficient or improperly drafted and grants leave to replead unauthorized use as a single defense with factual support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Twombly/Iqbal to defenses | Twombly/Iqbal should apply to defenses as pleading standard. | Application to affirmative defenses is unsettled; defenses should be allowed with less precision. | Twombly/Iqbal not required for defenses; court still requires fair notice. |
| Sufficiency of the twelve defenses | Defenses are bare bones and fail to state grounds of defense with fair notice. | Defenses are short and are legitimate pleadings under Rule 8. | Defense pleadings are inadequate; stricken with leave to replead. |
| Unauthorized use as TILA defense | Unauthorized use is part of TILA; not multiple defenses. | Unauthorized use is described as many separate defenses. | Unauthorized use should be pleaded as a single defense with supporting facts. |
| Impact on plaintiff's claims | Multiple defenses individually defeat TILA elements. | Defenses show disputes in damages and causation; not dispositive. | Overall defenses insufficient; granted strike with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Consulting Group, Inc. v. R. Randle Construction, Inc., 554 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir.2009) (Rule 12(f) standard for striking defenses)
- Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., 944 F.2d 1388 (7th Cir.1991) (affirmative defenses must provide fair notice)
- Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc., 901 F.2d 1373 (7th Cir.1990) (affirmative defenses do not controvert the claim)
- Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir.1989) (bare legal conclusions insufficient)
- DBI Architects, P.C. v. American Express Travel-Related Services Co., Inc., 388 F.3d 886 (D.C.Cir.2004) (unauthorized use burden on issuer; definition under statute)
- Minskoff v. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc., 98 F.3d 703 (2d Cir.1996) (cardholder liability burden under unauthorized use)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility to state claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (heightened pleading standard for plausibility)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1957) (former standard referenced in Twombly/Iqbal discussions)
- D.B.I. Architects, P.C. v. American Express Travel-Related Services Co., Inc., 388 F.3d 886 (D.C.Cir.2004) (unauthorized use burden on card issuer under TILA)