Sream Inc. v. GRATEFUL J'S, INC.
0:17-cv-60458
S.D. Fla.Jan 4, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Sream, Inc. sued Defendant Grateful J's, Inc. alleging false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; two other counts were previously dismissed.
- Defendant answered and asserted seven affirmative defenses.
- Plaintiff moved to strike five affirmative defenses (First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh).
- Defendant opposed and sought sanctions, arguing plaintiff failed to properly confer under S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3).
- The magistrate judge found plaintiff did not comply with the conferral rule but declined to impose sanctions, exercised discretion, and proceeded to consider the merits of the motion.
- The court struck the First Affirmative Defense (failure to state a claim) as legally insufficient and treated the remaining challenged defenses as denials rather than striking them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff complied with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) conferral requirement | Counsel did confer by email before filing and certified conferral; exigent deadline justified filing before response | Counsel said conferral was inadequate and sought sanctions for failure to confer | Court: plaintiff failed to satisfy conferral rule but declined to award sanctions; warned against repeat failures |
| Whether the First Affirmative Defense ("failure to state a claim") is sufficient | Motion: defense is bare, gives no notice, is legally insufficient and should be stricken | Defense argued affirmative defenses may be treated as specific denials and provide notice | Court: First Affirmative Defense provides no notice and is STRICKEN |
| Whether the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh defenses are deficient | Motion: these defenses are conclusory and should be stricken | Defense: they inform plaintiff and court of issues and should be preserved (or treated as denials) | Court: these defenses will be treated as denials/pleading denials and are NOT stricken |
| Whether sanctions are warranted for failure to comply with Local Rule | Plaintiff opposed sanctions, characterized misstatement as harmless error due to timing | Defendant requested fees/sanctions for rule violation | Court: denied sanctions and retained discretion to address future violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must give fair notice and contain enough factual matter to state a claim)
- Tsavaris v. Pfizer, Inc., 310 F.R.D. 678 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (affirmative defenses must give plaintiff fair notice)
- Adams v. Jumpstart Wireless Corp., 294 F.R.D. 668 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (Rule 8 requires nonconclusory allegations that provide notice)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repairs, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (affirmative defenses insufficient as a matter of law should be stricken)