MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this employment discrimination action, claiming that defendant terminated plaintiffs employment because of plaintiffs disability or perceived disability. Plaintiff also claims that defendant breached a contract entitling plaintiff to use sick leave and/or vacation when he was sick or injured. The case is in its early stages; it was filed less than four months ago, and trial is set for about one year from now. After defendant answered plaintiffs complaint, plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 7), arguing that dеfendant’s pleading is insufficient under the standards of
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
The content of defendant’s answer is not unlike many others this court sees. Without factual detail, defendant asserts several affirmative defenses through the following succinct statements:
• Plaintiffs contract claim is barred by the doctrines of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel.
• Any attempt at accommodation of Plaintiffs alleged disability would have imposed an undue hardship on Defendant.
• Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.
• Defendant reserves the right to assert such other affirmative defenses which are not now known, but which may become apparent through discovery.
(Doc. 5, Answer, at 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges that these statements are insufficient because plaintiff does not know the factual basis for the assertions. According to plaintiff, he does not have fair notice of the defenses that defendant intends to present in the case. He therefore asks the court to strike the affirmative defenses identified above. In Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court made clear that more than bare assertions аnd conclusions are required in a complaint. But the Supreme Court did not address the pleading requirements of defendants’ answers.
The issue before the court is whether the рleading standards of
Twombly
and
Iqbal
apply to affirmative defenses, or only complaints. No appellate court has decided this issue, and district courts are split. In 2009,
Hayne v. Green Ford, Sales Inc.
held that the
Twombly
plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses.
The court has reviewed the cases cited by the parties and conducted its own independent research. In reaching its decision, the court also considers the controlling standards for a motion to strike pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f): The court has discretion to strike an “insufficient defense” from a plеading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f);
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thomas,
No. 92-2084-GTV,
With the high standards of Rule 12(f) in mind, the court next turns to thе legal framework governing affirmative defenses. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) states that “[i]n responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.... ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c)(1) (emphasis added). In contrast, Rule 8(b) discusses defenses in general (including those not specifically identified as affirmative defenses in Rule 8(c)). Rule 8(b) requires that a responding party “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). And, in further contrast, Rule 8(a) discusses the requirement for a party to state a claim for relief in his or her complaint. A plaintiff seeking relief must make, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. ...” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added).
In Twombly, the Supreme Court held that a complaint must offer sufficient allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” This requirement relied on the language of Rule 8(a)(2):
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short аnd plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41 , 47,78 S.Ct. 99 ,2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Whilе a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations ... a plaintiffs obligation to provide the “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] tо relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
The need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement reflects the threshold requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) that the “plain statement” possess enough heft to “sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Twombly,
The court’s decision here is bolstered by аdditional considerations that the court will mention briefly. First, Fed.R.Civ.P. Form 30 serves as a form for presenting Rule 12(b) defenses. Form 30 states simply under “Failure to State a Claim”: “The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R.Civ.P. Form 30. There is no suggestion that factual allegations are required. Use of this official form to answer а complaint is sufficient under the Rules. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 84 (“The forms in the Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these rules contemplate.”). The brief and simple nature of this language indicates that no more detail is required of a defendant in an answer.
Second, the court finds logic in maintaining a higher standard for pleading claims than dеfenses. A plaintiff may take years to investigate and prepare a complaint, limited only by the reigning statute of limitations. But once that complaint is served, a defendant has only 21 days in
Third, the court returns to the high bar for succeeding on a motion to strike. As previously noted, the court may strike an “insufficient defеnse.” But striking an affirmative defense is considered a “drastic remedy,”
Wilhelm,
And finally, the court is hesitant to encourage parties to bog down litigation by filing and fighting motions to strike answers or defenses prematurely. The intent of Rule 12(f) is to “minimize delay, prеjudice, and confusion.”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fleischer,
In summary, the court determines that the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal should be limited to complaints — not extended to affirmative defenses. Reviewing the defenses identified by defendant in its answer, the court finds that they are sufficient under Rule 8(b) and (c), and should not be stricken from the answer at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 7) is denied.