Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01285-G|\/IS Document 66-3 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page1 of 3
6 Unreported Case 2 ` W

Case 1:04-cv-01285-Gl\/IS Document 66-3 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 2 of 3
LEXSEE 1996 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 5307
RICHARD W. STAFFORD, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
95 C 7152
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5307
April I9, 1996, Dated
April 22, 1996, DOCKETED
DISPOSITION: [*1] Plaintiff Stafford's Motion to former employer to amend its affirmative defenses to
Strike Affirmative Defenses is granted, with leave for conform to the rules of civil procedure.
Defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
to amend its affirmative defenses. LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
CASE SUMMARY:
COUNSEL: For RICHARD W STAFFORD, plaintiff:
Gregory A. Friedman, [COR LD NTC A], Paula K.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff former employee Maguire, [COR], Friedman & Holtz, P.C., Chicago, IL.
filed a complaint seeking commissions allegedly due and
reimbursement of expenses spent in connection with his For CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
former employment. Defendant former employer filed an COMPANY, defendant: James B. Herman, [COR NTC],
answer and affirmative defenses. The former employee Attorney, Philadelphia, PA.
made a motion to strike the affirmative defenses pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(f). JUDGES: Charles P. Kocoras, United States District
Judge
OVERVIEW: The former employee asserted claims
including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud in OPINIONBY: Charles P. Kocoras
the inducement, and fraud. In conclusory fashion, the
former employer asserted the affirmative defenses of OPINION:
failure to state a claim, estoppel, failure of consideration,
statute of limitations, and lack of mutual assent. The MEMORANDUM OPINION
former employee made a motion to strike the affirmative . . _
defenses. The court granted the motion. The court said CHARLES P' KOCORAS’ Dlsmct Judge;
that ordinarily, affirmative defenses would be stricken This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion
only when they were insufficient on the face of the to Strike the Defendant‘s Affirmative Defenses pursuant
pleadings, but affirmative defenses had to set forth a to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(f). For the reasons
"short and plain statement" of the defense. If an affirma· stated below, this Motion is granted.
tive defense was insufficient on its face or comprised no
more than bare bones conclusory allegations, it had to be DISCUSSION
stricken. The court concluded that the former employer's On December 13, 1995, Plaintiff Richard W. Staf-
motions were merely conclusory allegations that the ford ("Stafford") filed a complaint seeking reimburse-
former employer had not supported by any facts whatso- ment of expenses spent in connection with his employ-
ever. As such, the former employer's affirmative de- ment, as well as seeking commissions allegedly due in
fenses are deficient on their face. connection with his former employment. Stafford also
sought exemplary damages and asserted claims entitled:
OUTCOME: The Court granted the former €mpl0y€€'S (I) Breach of Contract; (1 1) Unjust Enrichment; and (III)
motion to strike affirmative defenses, with leave for the Fraud in the [*2] Inducement. On January 17, 1996,
DB02:5048504.2 900003.0002

Case 1:04-cv—O1285-Gl\/IS Document 66-3 Filed O9/O9/2005 Page 3 of 3
. Page’2
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5307,* ‘ _ - r
Stafford filed an Amended Complaint, substituting De- fense or any redundant, immaterial, im- I l
fendant, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company pertinent, or scandalous matter.
("CGLIC"), Plaintiffs former employer, and added a
count entitled (IV) Fraud. CGLIC filed its Answer to the
First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses on Although motions to strike are generally not favored
February 5, 1996. CGLIC's affirmative defenses were because of their potential dilatoiy nature, they are useful
stated as follows: and appropriate for weighing the legal implications to be
drawn from uncontroverted facts. United States v.
416.81 Acres ofLand, 514 F.2d 627, 631 (7th Cir. 1975).
Fuft Amrmanvc Dcfcmic Defendant claims that we should not consider this
Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege facts . . .
. . . . Motion to Strike [*4] because it was filed beyond
sufficient to state a claim on which relief . . . .
twenty days after service of the pleadings as is required
may be granted. . . .
. by Rule 12(f). However, the Seventh Circuit has inter-
Second Affirmative Defense . .
. . . preted Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doc- . . . . . . .
. as permitting district courts to consider a motion to strike
trine of estoppel. . . .11. J
Thee Ameeeeve Defeeee at any point in a case. W1 rams v. ader Fuel Co. Inc.,
Pleieeffe eleime ere eenee beeeeee ef 944 F.2d 1388, 1399 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504
{ . . . U.S. 957, 119 L. Ed. 2d 228, 112 S. Ct. 2306 (1992). We
allure of consideration. d . . . . .
. 0 not believe that either party will be prejudiced by the
Fourth Affirmative Defense . . . . . .
. . consideration of this Motion. Accordingly, we will not
The Complaint fails to state facts suffi- d the Pleieeff, M t. b f t. 1.
cient to constitute a cause of action or my S O Km Ecauseo lm me mess'
claims for punitive or exemplary dam- Ordinarily, affirmative defenses will be stricken
ages. only when they are insufficient on the face of the plead-
Fifth Affirmative Defense ings. 416.81 Acres of Land, 514 F.2d at 631; Heller Fi-
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the appli- naiicial Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co Inc., 883 F.2d 1286,
cable statute of limitations. 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). Affirmative defenses are pleadings
Sixth Affirmative Defense and are therefore subject to all pleading requirements of
The contract alleged in Plaintiffs Com- the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Heller, 883 F.2d at
plaint fail [sic] for lack of mutual assent. 1294; Flasza v. TNT Holland Motor Express Inc., 155
Seventh Affirmative Defense F.R.D. 612, 613 (N.D.Ill. 1994). Thus, affirmative de-
Plaintiff, by his acts and omissions, have fenses must set forth a "short and plain statement" of the
[sic] waived any purported claims for re- defense, and if an affirmative [*5] defense is insufficient
lief [*3] contained in the Complaint. on its face or compromises no more than "bare bones
conclusory allegations", it must be stricken. Heller, 883
F.2d at 1294-95; Flasza, 155 F.R.D. at 613-14. In the
On March 19, 1996, Stafford filed a Motion to Strike present case, the affirmative defenses are insufficient to
these Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f`) of the withstand this Motion. These affirmative defenses are
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Stafford asserted that merely conclusory allegations that the Defendant has not
CGLIC's seven affirmative defenses merely set forth bare supported by any facts whatsoever. As such, CGLIC's
legal conclusions without any factual support. We agree. affirmative defenses are deficient on their face. We
Metieee te mike efermeeve defeeeee ere eevemee therefore grant Stafford s motion to strike, and also grant
e Rule L20) ef the Federel Rules ef Civil Preeedure Defendant leave to amend these pleadings to conform
y . . _ ’ with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a).
which provides.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, Plaintiff Stafford's M0-
Upon motion made by a party before re- tion to Strike Affirmative Defenses is granted, with leave
sponding to a pleading or, if no respon- for Defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Com-
sive pleading is permitted by these rules, pany to amend its affirmative defenses.
upon motion made by a party within 20
days after the service ofthe pleading upon Charles P` Kocmas
the party or upon the COUITIS own initiative United States Digtrict Judge
at any time, the court may order stricken
from any pleading any insufficient de- Dated: April 19, 1996
DBO2:5048504.2 900003.0002