E.D.N.C.: Walker v. LVNV-Iqbal/Twombley Do Not Apply to Affirmative Defenses

Summary:

Walker moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike the affirmative defenses raised by LVNV,  arguing that the Iqbal/Twombley pleading standards apply to affirmative defenses.  Finding no controlling case law,  the court rejected this  relying on Liles v. Wyman (E.D.N.C.  2019) as  motions to strike " are generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy".

Commentary:

While technically accurate in stating that there is no controlling authority holding affirmative defenses to the Iqbal/Twombley standard,  the   Lilles  case does cite to Racick v. Dominion L. Assocs., 270 F.R.D. 228, 230 (E.D.N.C. 2010),  describing it as "collecting cases",  when in fact there the district court struck 11 out of 14 affirmative defenses for failing to comply with Iqbal/Twombley  pleading requirements.

Based on Walker,  however,  it would seem that the fairly regular grumble by judges that responses to motions or other pleading need specificity might not,  while helpful in the care and feeding of happy black robes,  actually be required.

With proper attribution,  please share this post.