Aguilar v. City Lights of China Restaurants, Inc., No. 8:2011cv02416 - Document 10 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/24/11. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : DANY FRANCISCO RAMOS AGUILAR : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 11-2416 : CITY LIGHTS OF CHINA RESTAURANT, INC. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Fair Labor Standards affirmative Aguilar. Act defenses ( FLSA ) filed (ECF No. 4). by case is a Plaintiff motion Dany to Francisco strike Ramos The issues are fully briefed, and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff s motion will be granted. I. Background The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff s complaint. Plaintiff, a Maryland Defendant City Lights resident, of began China working Restaurant, restaurant ) as a food preparer on April 8, 2010. 7-9).1 1 full-time Inc. at ( the (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ The restaurant is a Maryland corporation and has its The complaint initially states that Plaintiff began working at the restaurant on April 8, 2010, but later cites a period from March 8, 2010 until October 31, 2010, when referring principal place of business in Maryland. (Id. ¶ 2). Plaintiff generally worked approximately seventy hours per week and was paid twice per month. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11). From April 8, 2010 until October 31, 2010, each paycheck that Plaintiff received from the restaurant totaled $700. until April 14, 2011, (Id. ¶ 12). when From November 1, 2010 Plaintiff s employment at restaurant ended, each paycheck he received totaled $800. ¶ 13). the (Id. Thus, his hourly rate of pay was less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. (Id. ¶ 16). Plaintiff did not receive any overtime pay for the approximately thirty excess hours that he worked each week. (Id. ¶ 15). On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the restaurant, alleging violations minimum wage provisions. of the FLSA s overtime and The restaurant answered Plaintiff s complaint on September 22, 2011. In its answer, the restaurant asserted five affirmative defenses: (1) accord and satisfaction, (2) estoppel, (3) laches, (4) payment/offset, and (5) fraud. (ECF No. 3 ¶ 14). Plaintiff subsequently moved to strike these defenses (ECF No. 4), and the restaurant opposed this motion (ECF No. 8). to periods for which Plaintiff received a fixed paycheck. This opinion will adopt April 8, 2010, as the date on which Plaintiff began his employment at the restaurant because Plaintiff explicitly cites this date as such in the complaint. 2 II. Standard of Review Motions to strike are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which gives the court discretion to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. generally accepted that a motion to strike redundant, While it is is neither an authorized nor proper way to procure the dismissal of all or part of a pleading, 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1380, 391 (3d ed. 2004), some courts have found that an untimely answer may be stricken in its entirety under certain circumstances, see Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, 307 F.Supp.2d 2, 8 (D.D.C. 2004). In any context, remedy however, Rule 12(f) motions seek a drastic which is disfavored by the courts and infrequently granted. Clark v. Milam, 152 F.R.D. 66, 70 (S.D.W.Va. 1993); see also Waste Mgmt. Holdings v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001). III. Analysis Plaintiff has moved to strike the five affirmative defenses asserted by the restaurant, contending that they fail to satisfy the pleading requirements set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). 3 The restaurant argues, in response, that Twombly and Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses because they merely interpreted Rule 8(a)(2), which addresses the requirements for pleading a claim for relief. Before addressing the merits of these arguments, a brief review of Supreme Twombly Court and Iqbal considered is warranted. whether a In Twombly, complaint the asserting violations of ¶ 1 of the Sherman Act could survive a motion to dismiss when it alleged parallel conduct and contained only a conclusory assertion that contract, combination, the or defendants conspiracy. had 550 entered U.S. into at a 550. Reasoning that a complaint must set forth facts demonstrating that the claim is plausible on its face, the Court concluded that the Twombly plaintiffs had failed to nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible because their parallel conduct defendants behavior. allegation natural, more unilateral Id. at 565-66. likely engagement suggested in the free-market The Court also rejected legal labels and conclusions that were devoid of supporting facts, thereby refusing to credit the plaintiffs mere assertion contract, combination, or conspiracy existed. 564. 4 that a Id. at 555-57, The Court clarified Twombly in the Iqbal opinion, setting forth a two-pronged analytical approach for sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 8. evaluating the 129 S.Ct. at 1950. First, bare legal conclusions that do nothing more than recite the elements of a cause of action need not be credited, and the courts may exclude them from the Rule 8 analysis entirely. Id. Second, in order to state a claim, the complaint must plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief, a showing that requires more than the mere possibility of misconduct. Id. Neither Twombly nor Iqbal expressly addressed the pleading requirements applicable to affirmative defenses, and district courts throughout the country have since debated the issue. The majority of district courts, including those within this circuit, have concluded that the apply to affirmative defenses. Twombly-Iqbal approach does See, e.g., Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, 725 F.Supp.2d 532, 536 (D.Md. 2010); Racick v. Dominion Law Assocs., 270 F.R.D. 228, 233 (E.D.N.C. 2010). These opinions have principally relied on two justifications to reach this conclusion. First, they reason that it makes neither sense nor is it fair to require a plaintiff to provide the defendant with enough notice that there is a plausible, factual basis for [a] claim under one pleading standard and then permit a defendant under another pleading standard simply to 5 suggest that some defense may possibly apply in the case. Racick, 270 F.R.D. at 233 (quoting Palmer v. Oakland Farms, Inc., No. 5:10cv00029, 2010 WL 2605179, at *4 (W.D.Va. June 24, 2010). Second, they cite the importance of litigation efficiency, explaining that boilerplate defenses serve only to clutter the requiring docket opposing and . . . create counsel to conduct unnecessary unnecessary work by discovery. Bradshaw, 725 F.Supp.2d at 536 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In response, the small minority of courts within this circuit rejecting the application of the Twombly-Iqbal pleading standard absence to of concluded affirmative an that appellate Twombly defenses court and have opinion Iqbal relied on on issue confined the either or themselves sufficiency of claims for relief under Rule 8(a). to the have the See Amason v. PK Mgmt., No. 3:10-1752-MJP-JRM, 2011 WL 1100211, at *8 (D.S.C. Mar. 1, 2011); Lopez v. Asmar s Mediterranean Food, Inc., No. 1:10cv1218, 2011 WL 98573, at *2 (E.D.Va. Jan. 10, 2011). For instance, in Lopez, the court focused on the wording differences between Rule 8(a), which requires the pleader to show entitlement to relief, and Rule 8(b), which requires only a statement of the defense in short and plain terms. The Lopez court then stated that both Twombly and Iqbal focused on Rule 6 8(a) s entitlement conclusion that interpretations of to relief these Rule language opinions begin 8(a)(2) s pleader is entitled to relief. to justify the end with and required showing that the Id. The majority s resolution of this issue presents the more reasoned view, and the text of the Federal Rules supports this conclusion. certainly While not the language identical, of those Rules sections 8(a) and contain 8(b) is important textual overlap, with both subsections requiring a short and plain statement of the claim or defense. Additionally, Form 30, appended to the Federal Rules pursuant to Rule 84, strongly suggests that bare-bones assertions of at least some affirmative defenses will not suffice, as the Form s illustration of a statute of limitations defense sets forth not only the name of the affirmative defense, but also facts in support of it. Given Rule 84 s focus on illustrating the simplicity and brevity that these rules contemplate, the additional contained in Form 30 is hardly superfluous. conclusory, implausible allegations, Twombly factual detail In prohibiting and Iqbal thus merely made explicit principles long implicit in the general pleading requirements of the Federal Rules. Additionally, Twombly and Iqbal recognize the fairness and efficiency concerns highlighted 7 by district courts that have subsequently applied those standards to affirmative defenses. All pleading requirements exist to ensure that the opposing party receives fair notice of the nature of a claim or defense. Bradshaw, 725 F.Supp.2d at 536. recognized this concern, The Supreme Court has long Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, and it did not go application Twombly, of 550 unnoticed that U.S. in approach at 561 Twombly, to thus affirmative (acknowledging notice within a plaintiff s complaint). supporting the defenses. the need for See fair Litigation efficiency is also an important rationale underlying the Twombly and Iqbal opinions. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558-59 (discussing the need for some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 ( Rule 8 . . . does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. ). Cases refusing affirmative to defenses apply attempt the to Twombly-Iqbal downplay approach these to efficiency concerns by noting that the opposing party can simply obtain additional facts through limited discovery forms such contention interrogatories. Lopez, 2011 WL 98573, at *2. response, precisely however, ignores 8 the type of as This unnecessary discovery that troubled the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal and that has since troubled courts applying their approach to affirmative (Stevens, defenses. J., See, dissenting) e.g., Twombly, (explaining 550 that U.S. the at 572 majority s holding did not even permit limited discovery to determine whether a conspiracy existed among the defendants). although Twombly and Iqbal specifically Therefore, addressed the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 8(a), the Court likely did not intend to confine its holdings to complaints alone. Plaintiff here seeks to strike five affirmative defenses set forth by the restaurant: (1) accord and satisfaction, (2) estoppel, (3) laches, (4) payment/offset, and (5) fraud. As to the legal first four defenses, each sets forth conclusory statements wholly devoid of any supporting factual content. As a result, these defenses fail to set forth in short and plain terms the nature of the asserted defense and violate Rule 8 s general pleading requirements, as illustrated and interpreted through Form 30, stricken. Twombly, and Iqbal, and they are therefore See, e.g., Gordon v. Ameriquest Mortg. Corp. (In re Fischer), No. 08-74070-MHM at *2 (Bankr.N.D.Ga. Apr. 12, 2011) (striking a defense of accord and satisfaction that set forth only the name of the defense because the defendant had failed to provide notice of the factual 9 basis of the defense ); Racick, 270 F.R.D. at 237 (striking defenses of estoppel and laches as bare legal conclusion[s] ). Although the restaurant has phrased its fifth affirmative defense of fraud in a similarly conclusory manner, it fails apart from the affirmative alleging whether application of the It is well-established do so with particularity, allegation is made by defenses. fraud the must affirmative defense. or mistake, a Twombly-Iqbal way of a standard that a to party regardless claim of or an See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) ( In alleging fraud party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. ); see also Tyco Fire Prods. LP v. Victaulic Co., 777 F.Supp.2d 893, 901 (E.D.Pa. 2011) ( [T]he only exceptions to the general pleading rule for affirmative defenses are the defenses that fall within the special pleading provisions in Rule 9, especially Rule 9(b). (quoting 5 Procedure, Charles § 1274 Alan (3d Wright ed. et 2010))). al., Federal Practice Specifically, a & party alleging fraud must plead with particularity the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby. Wiggins v. Janus Capital Grp., Inc. (In re Mutual Funds Investment Litig.), 566 F.3d 111, 120 (4th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and ellipses omitted), rev'd on other 10 grounds by 131 S.Ct. 2296 (2011). facts to support its affirmative defense. conclusory The restaurant alleges no statement of fraud as an As such, this defense wholly fails to satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth by Rule 9(b), and it will be stricken accordingly. See United Fixtures Co. v. Base Mfg., No. 6:08-cv-506-Orl-28GJK, 2008 WL 4550212, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2008) (striking an affirmative defense of fraud where the defendant s answer stated only the conclusory allegation[] of fraud/inequitable conduct when setting forth that defense). The current deadline for amendment scheduling order is December 5, 2011. of pleadings (ECF No. 9). in the Should Defendant wish to reassert these or any other defenses, it may file a timely motion for leave to amend its answer. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff s affirmative defenses will be granted. motion to A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 11 strike
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
