Tsavaris v. Pfizer, Inc.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129365
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Plaintiff Maggie Tsavaris sued multiple pharmaceutical companies, alleging Prempro and Activella caused her breast cancer and asserting negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and strict products liability claims.
- Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals answered with 29 numbered "defenses and affirmative defenses," including failure to state a claim, federal preemption, statute of limitations, and comparative negligence.
- Tsavaris moved to strike all 29 defenses as legally insufficient boilerplate lacking factual support under Rule 12(f).
- Breckenridge argued the defenses meet the applicable pleading standard, cause no prejudice, and raise valid legal and factual issues.
- The Court addressed an intra-circuit split: whether affirmative defenses must meet the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard or a lower notice pleading standard under Rules 8(b)/(c).
- The Court adopted the lower Rule 8(b)/(c) notice standard but held several defenses were vague or boilerplate and struck them with leave to replead; other items were properly treated as denials rather than affirmative defenses and were not stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable pleading standard for affirmative defenses | Affirmative defenses must meet Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Affirmative defenses need only meet Rule 8(b)/(c) notice pleading | Court adopts lower notice pleading standard for affirmative defenses (Rules 8(b)/(c)) |
| Whether defenses that are bare legal conclusions should be stricken | Bare conclusions provide no fair notice and should be struck | Such defenses are permissible under the lower standard and cause no prejudice | Court struck defenses that were vague/boilerplate and lacked fair notice, with leave to replead |
| Whether labeled defenses that are actually denials must be struck | Plaintiff sought to strike many defenses as improper affirmative defenses | Breckenridge contended they were defenses | Court treated those as denials (not affirmative defenses) and denied motion to strike them |
| Remedy/timing for repleading stricken defenses | Strike without leave or demand details | If struck, allow repleading to cure deficiencies | Court granted motion in part, struck specified defenses with leave to replead by Oct 9, 2015; denied as to others |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility standard for claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (confirmed Twombly plausibility framework)
- Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 842 F.2d 260 (11th Cir. 1988) (Rule 8(c) serves to give notice of affirmative defenses)