Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKinley v. Rapid Global Business Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 13, 2017

ANGELA MCKINLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
RAPID GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., JENNIFER EMERY, FCA U.S. LLC, and RUSSELL ADAIR, Defendants.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1 THROUGH 12 AND RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

          LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Angela McKinley's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 1 Through 12 and Reservation of Defenses (“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. 19), which are set forth in Defendants Russell Adair and FCA U.S. LLC's (collectively “Defendants'”) Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. 29. For the reasons set forth below, McKinley's Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         I. DISCUSSION

         Initially, McKinley moved to strike all of Defendants' affirmative defenses as well as Defendants' reservation of additional defenses. Dkt. 20. Following McKinley's initial Motion to Strike, however, Defendants filed an Amended Complaint that altered some of their affirmative defenses. Dkt. 29. Accordingly, McKinley challenges Defendants' Affirmative Defenses 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10 in addition to Defendant's Reservation of Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. 6.

         A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[u]pon motion made by a party … the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Generally, motions to strike are disfavored. See Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). However, such motions are not disfavored when they “remove unnecessary clutter from the case [and] serve to expedite, not delay.” Id. Affirmative defenses should be stricken “only when they are insufficient on the face of the pleadings. Motions to strike … will not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiffs would succeed despite any state of the facts which could be proved in support of the defense, and are inferable from the pleadings.” Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., 944 F.2d 1388, 1400 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

         McKinley urges the Court to adopt the heighted pleading standard set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), for affirmative defenses. Dkt. 36 at 5-6. Although the Seventh Circuit has not determined whether Iqbal/Twombly applies to affirmative defenses, at least one court in this district declined to do so. See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Munoz, No. 1:10-cv-1563, 2011 WL 2881285 at * 1 (S.D. Ind. July 15, 2011). The Munoz court relied on the reasoning set forth in Leon v. Jacobson Transportation Co., Inc., No. 10 C 4939, 2010 WL 4810600 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2010), which this Court also finds persuasive. Thus, affirmative defenses are pleadings that need only meet the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a “short and plain statement” of the defense. Heller, 883 F.2d at 1294 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (“Rule 8(a)”)). Nonetheless, affirmative defenses that are “nothing but bare bones conclusory allegations” or totally fail “to allege the necessary elements of the alleged claims” are “meritless, ” and should be stricken. Id. at 1295. The decision whether to strike material is within the discretion of the Court. See Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992). With this legal standard in mind, the Court will address each of the Defendants' affirmative defenses challenged by McKinley's Motion to Strike.

         B. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

         Defendants are not “employers” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4) and 29 C.F.R. § 825.104-109.

         McKinley claims that this defense fails to set forth a “short and plain statement” and does not provide any supporting facts. Dkt. 36 at 2. The Defendants, however, provided a short and plain statement, with applicable law, under which they assert their defense. This is sufficiently pleaded to put McKinley on notice that the Defendants contest her employment status at the time the events took place pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2611 and 29 C.F.R. § 825.104-109. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is DENIED with respect to Defendants' second affirmative defense.

         C. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

         Plaintiff has no standing to initiate this action and has no right to any relief under the FMLA because she did not suffer from a serious health condition within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 2612 and 29 C.F.R. § 825.113 and was not otherwise entitled to leave under 29 U.S.C. § 2612.

         McKinley asserts that this defense repackages the first affirmative defense for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 36 at 3. She also claims that the defense is a conclusory allegation without any supporting facts. Dkt. 36 at 3. Once again, however, Defendants need only put McKinley on notice that they contest whether McKinley had a serious health condition, which is what they have done here. Moreover, the lack of specificity is a result of McKinley's own vague assertion in her Complaint, wherein she simply alleges that she has a “serious medical condition which periodically requires medical treatment and time off work from her job for such treatment.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 13. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is DENIED with respect to Defendants' fourth affirmative defense.

         D. FIFTH ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.