United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp.
308 F.R.D. 1
D.D.C.2015Background
- US and Relator filed a joint motion to strike or partially adjudicate Armstrong and CSE Defendants’ affirmative defenses.
- Government intervened in 2013; prior 2014 rulings denied some motions to dismiss and granted in part.
- Defendants voluntarily withdrew several affirmative defenses but contest remaining ones.
- Court applies Rule 12(f) standard, noting striking is drastic but appropriate to remove frivolous defenses.
- Court resolves remaining defenses in turn and enters partial grant/denial, with amended answers ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to state a claim is an affirmative defense | Landis argues it is not proper to strike; already decided claims state a claim. | Armstrong asserts failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense under Spay v. CVS. | Strike granted as to this defense. |
| Waiver, ratification, consent, and release as defenses | Defenses should be struck; no clear relinquishment or DOJ authority shown. | Some authority supports waivers through discovery. | Waiver/related defenses allowed to proceed at this stage due to authority dispute. |
| Estoppel against the government as a defense | Estoppel requires affirmative misconduct and reliance; not shown here. | Government estopped from pursuing claims due to conduct. | Stricken; insufficient reliance on government conduct to warrant estoppel. |
| Existence of United States’ injuries and damages and treble damages | Damages proof not required for liability; treble damages require showing actual damages. | Damages are speculative and must be denied or limited. | Defenses permitted to continue; damages showing not fatal to liability at this stage. |
| Failure to plead fraud with particularity and vagueness arguments | Pleading satisfies Rule 9(b) with time, place, contents of false statements. | Lack of particularity/vagueness remains unresolved. | Court grants as to Rule 9(b) objections; defenses deemed waived or resolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2013 WL 1755214 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (recognizes treating failure-to-state-a-claim as an affirmative defense with caveats)
- Gates v. District of Columbia, 825 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D.D.C. 2011) (drastic remedy; motion to strike disfavored and limited to frivolous defenses)
- U.S. ex rel. Head v. Kane Co., 668 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2009) (securities of striking defenses; importance of efficiency)
- U.S. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2012) (equitable estoppel against government; require extreme circumstances)
- U.S. ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003) (government theories may be pleaded in the alternative)