City of East St. Louis, Illinois v. Monsanto Corporation, No. 3:2021cv00232 - Document 70 (S.D. Ill. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion to Strike. As described in the attached Memorandum & Order, Defendants may file an amended answer within 21 days. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 3/2/2022. (sth)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
City of East St. Louis, Illinois v. Monsanto Corporation Doc. 70 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #818 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff, vs. PHARMACIA LLC, SOLUTIA, INC., and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:21-cv-232-DWD MEMORANDUM & ORDER DUGAN, District Judge: for decision. (Docs. 52 & 61). For the following reasons, the motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendants Monsanto Company, Pharmacia LLC, and Solutia, Inc. are the successors to the original Monsanto organizat they have all assumed any liability for Monsan Sauget, Illinois from 1936 to 1977. (Doc. 29 at 3). About 1.1 acres of the plant fall within rights-of-way . . . are immediately adjacent to the Monsanto Plant PCB contaminated site Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #819 of PCBs at its plant from 1936 to 1977, incinerated thousands of metric tons of PCBs at its plant after 1977, and deposited PCB waste in toxic dumps in Sauget from the 1940s to the 1980s. (Doc. 29 at 3-4). In an amended complaint filed on April 23, 2021, the City alleges that Monsanto knew that PCBs were highly toxic when it was producing them. (Doc. 29 at 6). Monsanto also knew or should have known that PCBs persist in the natural environment instead of breaking down over time. (Doc. 29 at 7). Thus, Monsanto also knew or should have known that PCBs disposed of in landfills, incinerators, and other waste facilities in or contamination will cost the City millions of dollars to clean its land and restore its residential or commercial value. (Doc. 29 at 8). Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses on October 12, 2021. (Doc. 48). II. LEGAL STANDARDS insufficient defense . . . or immaterial . . . an affirmative defense, the Court applies the same test used to weigh a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. That is, the no favor, and all doubts are resolved in favor of denying the motion to strike. See generally Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 698 2 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #820 (2009); see also Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989) (noting that affirmative defenses must meet the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The heightened pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses as well, meaning that the standard requiring a plaintiff to plead with 1 Allegations in affirmative defenses are also insufficient if they bear no relation to the controversy between the parties or if they would prejudice the movant. , 388 F. Supp. 3d 975, 980 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Affirmative defenses subject to a motion to strike are examined using a three-part test: (1) the defense must be a proper affirmative defense, (2) it must be adequately pleaded under Rules 8 and 9; and (3) it must be able to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. , No. 15 C 50137, 2016 WL 6624224, the allegations in the complaint, but avoids liability, in whole or in part, by new As noted by other courts, the Seventh Circuit has not yet decided whether affirmative defenses must comport with the Twombly and Iqbal standards. However, despite some disagreement among the district courts in this Circuit, the majority seems to find the heightened pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal applicable to defendants attempting to plead affirmative defenses. See Soos & Assocs. v. Five Guys Enterprises, 425 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1010 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (siding with the majority rule and concluding that an 1 Sarks in the Park, LLC, 55 F. Supp. 3d 1034 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Cf. LaPorte v. Bureau Veritas N. Am. Inc., No. 12 C 9543, 2013 WL 250657, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013) (stating heightened pleading standards of Twombly not to be applied to affirmative defenses in the Northern District of Illinois). This Court believes that just as the heightened pleading standards for plaintiffs serve the purpose of ensuring the theory of recovery that is plead is at least plausible and not just possible, it is also served when pleading avoidance and affirmative defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). 3 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #821 Hosp., 915 F.3d 473, 477 n.1 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Divine v. Volunteers of Am. of Ill., 319 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 2018)). III. DISCUSSION pleaded and some as not being affirmative defenses. (Doc. 52 at 2). In their response, 37, and 38. (Doc. 61 at 1). As a result, these will be stricken. requirements of Twombly and Iqbal Soos & Assocs., 425 F. Supp. 3d at 1010 n.2. For instance, whole or in part its claims, or some waived which claims and to what degree. As it is, affirmative defense 3 contains nothing actions taken under color of which federal officer. These affirmative defenses are insufficiently plead and will be stricken without prejudice. Affirmative defenses 30 and 31 assert that Sections 1-15 and 50-71 of the East St. Louis Municipal Code are unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. (Doc. 48 4 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #822 at 19). Affirmative defense 32 asserts that the fines being sought are excessive and not permitted under the United States Constitution or Constitution of the State of Illinois. Affirmative defense 35 alleges that retroactive applications of these statutes and case law are violative of the United States Constitution and Illinois Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that these are not affirmative defenses. (Doc. 52 at 10). However, the City has made no specific argument explaining why such constitutional challenges are not affirmative defenses. Defendants have stated these affirmative defenses in sufficient detail to put the City on notice of their claims. Therefore, the Court will permit these affirmative defenses to stand. to the East St. Louis Municipal Code, doctrine requires a plaintiff to choose a specific remedy when two or more fundamentally conflicting remedies are available. See Medcom Holding Co. v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d 223, 229 (7th Cir. 1993). For example, the doctrine would require a plaintiff seeking a remedy related to a contract dispute to choose between seeking damages, which involves affirming the contract, and rescission, which involves disaffirming the contract. Id. be prejudiced if the plaintiff were not forced to choose the form of his action fairly early Id. Here, the City seeks damages, fines, and injunctive relief consisting of problem. 5 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #823 In their response to the motion to strike, Defendants argue for the first time that affirmative defense 34 relies on Section 1-16 of the East St. Louis Municipal Code, which East St. Louis, Ill., Code ยง 1-16. According to Defendants, Section 1-16 requires the City to choose under which section of the municipal code it wishes to proceed. (Doc. 61 at 13). This defense is distinct from the election of remedies doctrine. If Defendants wish to raise an affirmative defense under Section 1-16, they must amend this affirmative defense to cite Section 1-16 specifically. As it stands, affirmative defense 34 is due to be stricken without prejudice because the problem. one-act, one-crime doctrine as articulated in People v. King, 66 Ill.2d 551 (1977), and its one-act, one-crime rule, which aims to protect the fundamental fairness of a criminal Smoke N Stuff v. City of Chicago, 40 N.E.3d 338, 344 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). Because it is inapplicable to this lawsuit, affirmative defense 36 is due to be stricken with prejudice. CONCLUSION GRANTED in part and DENIED in part GRANTED as to affirmative defenses STRICKEN with prejudice. 6 Case 3:21-cv-00232-DWD Document 70 Filed 03/02/22 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #824 GRANTED and 34, and they are STRICKEN without prejudice with leave to amend within 21 days DENIED 35. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2022 ______________________________ DAVID W. DUGAN United States District Judge 7
]]>
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.
