Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114983

Wells Fargo seeks a tax refund and previously paid deficiency interest from the United States.
The government asserted an offset/recoupment defense in Wells Fargo's amended answer.
Wells Fargo moved to strike the offset/recoupment defense under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f); Judge Boylan denied the motion.
The district court reviews a magistrate judge's nondispositive pretrial ruling for clear error or contrary to law.
Judge Boylan's order and the related reasoning were challenged by Wells Fargo on objection to the order.
The court ultimately affirms Judge Boylan's order and denies Wells Fargo's request for oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Boylan properly struck/allowed the defense	Wells Fargo argues the defense is improper at the pleading stage and should be struck.	The government contends the defense is properly pleadable and should not be prematurely dismissed.	Objection overruled; order affirmed; defense pleadings remain permissible.
Applicability of Iqbal and Twombly to pleading defenses	Iqbal and Twombly should require plausibility in defenses.	Iqbal and Twombly do not apply to pleading defenses under Rule 8(b) and (c).	Iqbal and Twombly do not apply to affirmative defenses.
Whether Iqbal/Twombly should apply to Rule 8(b) pleading of defenses	Defenses must meet plausibility pleading standards.	Affirmative defenses are exempt from Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards.	Court agrees Iqbal/Twombly do not govern pleading of defenses under Rule 8(b).
Impact of Mahoney and Missouri Pacific on pleading standards for defenses	Mahoney imposes heightened pleading for setoff/offset defenses.	Mahoney is distinguishable and not a general heightened pleading rule for defenses.	Mahoney distinguished; no heightened pleading standard for defenses applied here.
Whether the government's defense conforms to Form 11 negligence pleading standards	Not applicable; defenses require more stringent pleading.	The defense conforms to Form 11 negligence pleading standards.	Defense is consistent with the appropriate negligence-pleading standard.

Missouri Pac. Railroad Co. v. United States, 338 F.2d 668 (1964) (burdens of proof not at issue during pleading stage)
Missouri Pac. Railroad Co. v. United States, 411 F.2d 327 (8th Cir.1969) (burdens of proof; context for offset/recoupment defenses)
Mahoney v. United States, None (1980) (distinguishable discovery-abuse and non-basis for plaintiff's claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard not applied to defenses)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard not required for defenses)
Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816 (8th Cir.2010) (Form 13-based pleading sufficiency guidance relevant to employer-pleading)