FERRELLGAS, L.P. et al v. BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS, No. 1:2016cv00259 - Document 24 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER ON 08/30/2016. Plaintiff's motion 18 is GRANTED. Defendant's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Affirmative Defenses are STRICKEN. Defendant shall be permitted to amend its answer if leave is sought within fourteen days of this Order. (Coyne, Michelle)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FERRELLGAS, L.P. et al v. BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA FERRELLGAS, L.P. et al., Plaintiffs, V. BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS a/k/a SKY BILLIARDS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1,:1,6CY259 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE This mattet is before the Cout upon Plaintiffs Fettellgas, L.P. ("Fertellgas") and Blue Rhino Global Sourcing, Inc.'s ("Blue Rhino") Motion to Strike Afftmative Defenses ftom Defendant Best Choice Products' (a/k/a Sky Billiards, Inc.) Vedfied Answet. (Docket Entty 18.) Defendant has not filed a response. Fot the following reasons, the Court will gtant Plaintiffs'motion and stdke Defendant's fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses from its verified answer. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that Defendant, without authorizatllon, marketed, offered for sale, and sold outdoor fteplaces that wete designed and manufactuted for Blue Rhino at a significantly lowet r^te thaln Plaintiffs' listing pdce. Er,tty 1.) Ferrellgas, (Id.In 1,0, 1.2.) ^ (Jaa Compl. llI 16-20, Docket ptemier propane provider, is the owner of the Blue Rhino trademark. Blue Rhino, a subsidiary of Ferellgas, distributes outdoor living accessories, including fteplaces and heaters. (Id.I 11.) Defendant is engaged in the business of impoting, 1 Dockets.Justia.com matketing and selling household items, including outdoor fteplaces. (Id. n 1,5.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is marketing and selling its fheplaces, prticulady the UniFlame Hex Shaped Outdoor Fire Bowl, thtough online tetailers and includes an Owner's Manual that "falsely suggest that Hex Fiteplaces sold by Defendant otiginated ftom Blue Rhino." (Id.n 21; see also id.1i1[ 16, 20.) As a tesult, Plaintiffs contend that Blue Rhino's name, reputation, and goodwill ate suffedng; thus, Plaintiffs seek damages fot tadematk infringement, unfair competition, and unfait and deceptive trade practices. (1d.111,36-53.) Defendant filed its verified answet on Apdl 26, 201,6, asserting several afñtmanve defenses in this action, including: FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendantfi allegefs] Plaintiffs chims in the Complaint are barred by the doctine of equitable estoppel in whole or in part. Defendant[] allegefs] Plaintiffs claims in the Complaint ate batred by the doctrine of waivet in whole or in pat. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant[] ailege[s] Plaintifls claims in the Complaint are barred by Plaintiffs consent or acquiescence. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSB Defendantfl allegefs] Plaintiffs claims in the Complaint are baned by the docttine of laches in whole or in part. pef. Answer, Docket Errtty 1,6 at 6-7.) Plaintiffs filed the pending motion, seeking to sffike the above afftmative defenses because "Defendant failfed] to allege a single fact to support any of the afîttmative defenses." (Pls.' Mem., Docket E.ttry 19 at3.) Defendant a response to this motion. 2 has not filed II. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Rule 12(\ of the Fedetal Rules of Civil Ptocedure, a court can "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any tedundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous m^tter" on its own or on motion of a parq. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(Ð; ll/a¡te Mgrut. Holdingt, Inc. u. Gilnore,252F.3d 31,6,347 (4th Cir. 2001). In teviewing a motion to stdke pursuant to Rule 1,2(f), the Gaessþrd Cout reviews "the pleading undet attack in a light most favotable to the pleader." u. Pa. Nøll Mat. Ca¡. Ins. C0.,918 F. S.rpp. 2d453,467 (À4.D.N.C.201,3). "The Fouith Citcuit has recognized tbat Rule 12(f) motions are geîerz'lly viewed with disfavot because striking a pottion of a pleading is a drastic remedy." Id, (cítattons and quotations omitted). Howevet, "a defense that might confuse the issues in the case and would not, under the facts alleged, constitute a valid defense ^t to the action can and should be deleted." Gilmore,252F3d 347 (intetnal quotations and citations omitted). "A party moving to strike a defense pursunt to Rule 12(f) must make a showing of prejudice." Staton u. N. Søn Arceptance, I-I,C, No. 1:1 3-CV -27 7, 201,3 WL 39 !Øhen a, 1,01, 53, at x2 G\,{.D.N.C. July 29, 201.3). p^tty pleads an af.firmative defense, "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), which specifically governs aflumative defenses, requires a p^rty to 'affrmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense."' Caerþrd,918 F. S,rpp. 2d at 468 (citing tred. R. Civ. P. 8(.)). Additionally, "the majotity of pourth Citcuit] disttict coutts have concluded that particularity and plausibility standard from lqbal/Twonbþ does apply aflnmalìve defenses." Staton, 201,3 WL 391,01,53, at *2 (cittne cases); the to the pleading of see al¡o Ashroft u. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 Q009); BellAtlantic Corþ. u. Twonbþ,550 U.S. 544 Q007). However, "coutts in the Middle District have declined to extend Twombþ and lqbal J to afîtmative defenses given the language of Rule 8 of the Fedetal Rules of Civil Procedute and existing Foutth Circuit authotity." Orshal u. Bod1nte Therrzal Procetsing 1øa., (Ì\4.D.N.C. July 26,2016); see No. 1:15CY67 4, 201,6 IØL 40076L0, at *2 al¡o Gøessford,918 F. Srrpp. 2d at 468. Thus, "as long as the afñrmaave defense gives the piaintiff fait notice of the nature of the defense, then it will be sufficient." Keith Burcch Associate¡ LLC u.I-ø-Z-Bo11zr., No. 1:14-CV-850,201.5 at x2 (X4.D.N.C. July 9, 2015) (citing Clen u, Corbeaø,98 F. ,A.pp'x Villa u. AlþFin.,Iøc., No. 1:13CY953,201,4 survive a motion ìfL 197 ìfL 4158760, , 203 (4th Cu. 200Q); 800450,at*2 (N{.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2014) to strike, a defendant must offer more than a bare-bones ("fllo conclusory allegation which simply names alegal theory but does not indicate how the theory is connected to the case at hand.") (internal quotations and citations omitted). Deciding whether to grant ot deny a motion to strike is discretionary. Renaissance GreetingCards, Inc. a. DollarTree Stores, lnc.,227 F. App'x 239,246 (4th Cir. 2007), Having reviewed Plaintiffs' argument, the Court finds that Defendant's fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defenses are deficient because they are nothing more than bare-bone conclusory statements without supporting facts to give fair notice to Plaintiff as to the basis of such defenses. (D. Md. July 27 Topline Soh., Inc. u. Sandler 51s, 1ør:, ,201,0) ("[E]ven befote Tworzbþ and Iqbal, the defenses of waiver, estoppel and laches wete consistently a. No. L-09-3102,201,0 V/L 2998836, at*2 Mex-Am Cafe, stuck when pled without reference to some facts."); see a/so EspinoTa II,C, No. 1:14CV30, 201,5 WL 5431,949, at *6 (A{.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015) (finding two of defendants' af.îrmattve defenses "insufficient irtespective of the application of Twombþ and lqbal because they do nothing more than state a legal theory without any indication of the relevance of those defenses to Plaintiffs'claims"); Vilk,201,4WL 800450, at 4 *3 ("[S]imply asserting that the equitable doctrine of laches bars the Complaint does not connect the theory to the instant case and, thus, does not provide Plaintiff with sufficient notice of the defense under Rule 8."); Moomacer,Inc. u. Collary' No. 5:13-CY-455-BO, 2013WL 5949863, at x3 (E,.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2013) (granting in part plaintiff motion to strike sevetal "affttrrrald,ve defenses by defendant [tht] contain no more than labels and conclusions ot have no basis in law"). Because "dismissal under Rule 12(f) is apptopriate whete the defendant has not articulated its defenses so that they ate contextually comptehensible[,]" Plaintiffs' motion will be granted. Vi/|a,2014WI- 800450, atx2 (cittng of Johnston, O@sse1 Imaging LLC a. Cardiology As¡ocl LLC,752 F.Supp.2d721.,726 ffl.D.Va. 2010)). However, because motions to strike aïe genetz,lly disfavored, Defendant, upon an appropdate motion, will be affotded an opportunity to amend its answet. Molnracer,201,3 WL 5949863, at *3 ("[B]ecause motions to strike are so disfavored, leave shall be given upon an apptopriate motion for leave to file [an] amended answef".). III. CONCLUSION Fot the reasons stated hetein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (Docket Entry 18) GRANTED. Defendant's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Affumative Defenses is are STRICKEN. Defendant shall be permitted to amend its answet if leave is sought within fourteen (14) days of this Order, l7ebstet United t^ tes Magistrate Judge August 30,201.6 Durham, Notth Carolina 5
]]>
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.
