Vogel v. Huntington Oaks Delaware Partners, LLC
291 F.R.D. 438
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Martin Vogel sued Huntington Oaks Delaware Partners, LLC alleging violations of state and federal accessibility laws, including the ADA.
- Huntington answered and asserted 26 affirmative defenses (e.g., failure to state a claim; laches; waiver; comparative negligence; no standing; undue hardship; not readily achievable; substantial compliance; reservation to assert additional defenses).
- Vogel moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike all affirmative defenses as legally or factually insufficient, impertinent, or not true affirmative defenses.
- The district court considered whether Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standards apply to affirmative defenses or whether the older Wyshak fair-notice standard controls.
- The court concluded Twombly/Iqbal’s plausibility standard governs affirmative defenses and found Huntington’s defenses largely conclusory, unsupported, impertinent, or not affirmative defenses.
- The court struck all 26 defenses but granted Huntington leave to amend by a set deadline, warning that future inadequate pleadings could trigger Rule 11 sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses | Wyshak fair‑notice should be replaced by Twombly/Iqbal; affirmative defenses must meet plausibility | Affirmative defenses need only satisfy Wyshak’s lenient fair‑notice standard; Twombly/Iqbal unduly burdens defendants | Court held Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses |
| Whether Huntington’s affirmative defenses were sufficiently pleaded | Defenses are conclusory, lack factual support, and fail to link defenses to specific claims | Defendants rely on fair‑notice standard and practical response time constraints | Court found defenses factually insufficient (conclusory, no factual allegations) and struck them |
| Whether some asserted items are not affirmative defenses at all | Argues such assertions should be struck (e.g., failure to state a claim; lack of damages; lack of standing) | Defendant included them as affirmative defenses in the Answer | Court held those are not affirmative defenses and struck them |
| Whether certain defenses are legally impertinent to ADA claims (e.g., comparative negligence, third‑party fault, assumption of risk) | Such doctrines are irrelevant under ADA and other statutory claims and should be struck without leave to amend | Defendant contends some defenses might be relevant or should be allowed to be repleaded | Court struck them but granted leave to amend, noting prejudice not shown and permitting repleading only with factual support and relevance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must contain factual content plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) (fair‑notice standard for pleading affirmative defenses)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (former "no set of facts" notice standard superseded by Twombly)
- Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan–Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (affirmative defenses governed by same pleading standards as complaints)