Federal Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses Having No Basis in Fact

In the case of DeSandies v. Encore Group (YSA), LLC, No. 2:24-CV-01044-JDW (E.D. Pa. April 19, 2024 Wolson, J.), the court addressed affirmative defenses filed by a Defendant in a federal court matter and determined that a Rule 11 sanction was appropriate given that certain defenses asserted by a defense counsel were not supported by the facts of the case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant filed an Answer that included an affirmative defense relative to an allegation regarding the statute of limitations which the court deemed to be invalid on its face on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 

After the Defendant chose not to amend but instead defend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the court rejected the defense position and imposed a Rule 11 sanction, striking all of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses from its Answer but otherwise allowing the defense the ability to seek leave of court to amend its affirmative defenses for which the defense had a good faith basis.

This case arose out of allegations under the American for Disability Act. The Defendant’s Answer included ten (10) affirmative defenses, one of which was a statute of limitations defense.

The court reviewed the pleadings and concluded that the assertion of a statute of limitations defense was merely a prophylactic allegation rather than being validly based upon some claim by Plaintiff that was barred by the statute of limitations.

The court ordered the Defendant to either file an Amended Answer in which it would only assert those defenses for which it had a good faith basis or to otherwise file a Memorandum explaining why its Answer should be not stricken as in violation of F.R.C.P. 11(b).  As noted, the Defendant elected to defend its Answer rather than amend.

Thereafter, the court concluded that the Defendant’s affirmative defense on the statute of limitations was patently unmeritorious or frivolous and thereby warranted the imposition of sanctions.

The Defendant claimed that discovery could later support the defense of the statute of limitations that the Defendant therefore desired to preserve its defense in its pleadings.

The court rejected that reasoning, observing that Rule 11 does not countenance the assertion of affirmative defense based on what another party might assert in the future, either as to claims or testimony.

The court stated that, if the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff eventually took some action that changed the scope of the claim presented, then the Defendant’s remedy would be to seek leave of court to amend its Answer to assert a new affirmative defense at that later date. The court otherwise reaffirmed its decision that it was not an option to assert affirmative defenses initially in a prophylactic fashion with no factual basis for doing so.

In the end, the court determined that the improper assertion of the affirmative defenses warranted the imposition of sanctions because such practice unnecessarily expand discovery and made it more difficult to resolve cases. Judge Wolson also noted that, just as a Plaintiff was not entitled to assert claims that lacked any basis, a Defendant may not assert affirmative defenses that lacked any basis.

The court deemed that the appropriate sanction would be to strike all of the Defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses, without prejudice to the Defendant’s ability to seek leave court to amend its Answer to include affirmative defenses for which the defense had a good faith basis.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Law.com: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (May 16, 2024).

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann Addresses How To Attack Deficient Affirmative Defenses

In the case of Armbruster v. Eskola, No. 4:21-CV-02070 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2022 Brann, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss. Of note, the court addressed the propriety of pleadings in a Defendant's stated affirmative defenses in this Federal Court matter.

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident.

After the Defendant file an Answer with Affirmative Defenses, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Answer under F.R.C.P. 11.    

Initially, the court ruled that a Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike, not a challenge under Rule 11, is the proper process for evaluating the sufficiency of pleading defenses.

Under F.R.C.P. 12(f), a court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant material, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."   

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

Judge Matthew W. Brann went on to rule that affirmative defenses asserted by a Defendant must provide the Plaintiff with fair notice as to the types of defenses raised, but need not rise to the level of plausibility.

The court noted that pleading facts in affirmative defenses is not necessary as long as the defense stated is logically within the ambit of the litigation. However, defenses that have no factual or logical relationship to the allegations in the Complaint will be stricken.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Ujesh Krishnan on www.unsplash.com.

Boilerplate Affirmative Defenses Stricken

In the case of Greenspan v. Platinum Healthcare Group, LLC., No. 2: CV-05874-JDW (E.D. Pa. March 16, 2021 Wolson, J.) the court struck Affirmative Defenses from a Federal Court Answer filed by a Defendant in a case where the defendant failed to assert any allegations or cite to any facts or evidence that would give rise to a good faith basis to plead the defenses that were asserted.

The court found that the Defendant's Affirmative Defenses violated Rule 11 as they were pled with conditional language that indicated that the Defendant did not have evidence to support the assertion of the defenses at the time. Rather, the court seem to indicate that it felt that boilerplate defenses had been pled in the case.

While the court acknowledge that defense counsel only had a short time to investigate the case before the pleading deadlines, the court found that this did not excuse counsel from the requirement of having a good faith basis to assert Affirmative Defenses in an Answer. 

The court pointed out that defense counsel with limited time to investigate possible Affirmative Defenses could request an extension of time to file that Answer. The court stated that such request are routinely granted by Plaintiff’s attorneys and the courts as matter of courtesy.

The court additionally noted that the defendants have twenty-one (21) days for filing their Answer to file an amended Answer as of right under Rule F.R.C. P. 15.

The court also noted that defendants could thereafter request leave to file an amended Answer beyond the twenty-one (21) day period, which leave the court was required by the Rules to allow “when justice is so requires.”

In the Opinion, the court grandly stated that “its opinion will now be public record for counsel in this case and in future cases to use as a guide and pleading affirmative defenses.”

Given the court’s finding that the Defendant had violated Rule 11, the court issued the sanction of striking the Affirmative Defenses but did so without prejudice. The court noted that if the Defendant had a good faith basis to assert any Affirmative Defense, it could seek to assert them by filing an appropriate motion to amend its Answer.

The court ended the opinion by noting that “Pleadings are not an opportunity for lawyers to throw things against the wall and see what sticks.” The court noted that Rule 11 requires lawyers to give some thought to the assertions included in pleading before they are filed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order of Court may be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 5, 2021).