throbber
Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`James M. Wagstaffe (95535)
`Frank Busch (258288)
`WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
`BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
`100 Pine Street, Suite 725
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 357-8900
`Fax: (415) 357-8910
`wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
`busch@wvbrlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Erica Frasco
`and Sarah Wellman
`
`Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice)
`Michael Canty (pro hac vice)
`LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
`140 Broadway
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: (212) 907-0700
`Fax: (212) 818-0477
`cvillegas@labaton.com
`mcanty@labaton.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
` Christian Levis (pro hac vice)
`Amanda Fiorilla (pro hac vice)
`LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
`44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
`White Plains, NY 10601
`Tel: (914) 997-0500
`Fax: (914) 997-0035
`clevis@lowey.com
`afiorilla@lowey.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Diana J. Zinser (pro hac vice)
`SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF,
`P.C.
`2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 496-0300
`Fax: (215) 496-6611
`dzinser@srkattorneys.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
`the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`ERICA FRASCO, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`FLO HEALTH, INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE
`DEFENSES
`
`Hon. James Donato
`Judge:
`Hearing: October 6, 2022
`Time: 10:00 A.M.
`Court:
`Courtroom 11 – 19th Floor
`
`Action Filed: January 29, 2021
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SARAH WELLMAN, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`JUSTINE PIETRZYK, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`JENNIFER CHEN, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`LEAH RIDGWAY and AUTUMN MEIGS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`MADELINE KISS, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 1 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 2 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 4 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 4 
`
`FLO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NOS. 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-20, 22-27, 29-30, AND
`THE “ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE” PARAGRAPH, ARE
`IMPROPER “NEGATIVE” DEFENSES AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN. ...................... 6 
`
`FLO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NOS. 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 21, AND 23 FAIL
`TO PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN. ...................................... 8 
`
`PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW PREJUDICE TO JUSTIFY
`STRIKING THE INVALID DEFENSES. ......................................................................... 10
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 11 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan,
`718 F.Supp.2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`Beco Dairy Automation, Inc. v. Global Tech Systems, Inc.,
`2015 WL 9583012 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2015) ........................................................................... 5
`
`Castellano Access v. Access Premier Realty7, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7423821 ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation,
`Case No. 20-cv-06850-MMC, slip. op., 2022 WL 2390991 (N.D. Cal. July 1,
`2022) ...................................................................................................................................... 4, 7
`
`Delson v. Barron Egg Shop of MontClair,
`No. C 12-06454 RS, 2013 WL 12411137 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) ................................. 6, 10
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Timeless Investments, Inc.,
`734 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Facebook v. Gajjar,
`Case No. 4:20-cv-02429-KAW, slip. op. 2022 WL 2239834 (N.D. Cal. June 17,
`2022) .......................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ......................... 5
`
`G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen,
`2010 WL 3749284 ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Greenspan v. Platinum Healthcare Group, LLC,
`2021 WL 978899 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2021) .......................................................................... 5, 9
`
`Hernandez v. County of Monterey,
`306 F.R.D. 279 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`J&J Sports Prods. v. Mendoza-Govan,
`No. C10-05123, 2011 WL 1544886 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) ................................................ 6
`
`Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC,
`No. 14-cv-00735-LHK, 2014 WL 4090809 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) ................................... 7
`
`Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Williams,
`No. 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC, 2016 WL 5109474 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2016) ......................... 7
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`Legacy v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`2016 WL 2622953 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) ....................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Leos v. Rasey,
`2016 WL 1162658 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Munoz v. PHH Corp.,
`No. 1:08-cv-0759-AWI-BAM, 2013 WL 1278509 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ........................ 6
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 16-CV-01393-JST, 2017 WL 2311296 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) .................................... 9
`
`Perez v. Gordon & Wong Law Group, P.C.,
`No. 11-CV-03323-LHK, 2012 WL 1029425 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) ................................. 4
`
`SCA Hygiene Products Atkiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Sherwin–Williams Co. v. Courtesy Oldsmobile–Cadillac
`2016 WL 615335 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) ......................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7272222 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015) .......................................................................... 5
`
`United States v. Academy Mortgage Corporation,
`slip. op. 2022 WL 7056017 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2020) .............................................................. 8
`
`Uriarte v. Schwarzenegger,
`2012 WL 1622237 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Varrasso v. Barksdale,
`2016 WL 1375594 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co.,
`618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Wild v. Benchmark Pest Control, Inc.,
`2016 WL 1046925 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,
`302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Rules & Statutes
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ................................................................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 6, 2022, at 10:00 A.M., or as soon
`
`thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable James Donato for the
`United States District Court in the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs will and hereby do
`move pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) for entry of an order striking Affirmative Defenses 1, 4-
`5, 7-27, 29-30, and the paragraph entitled “Additional Affirmative Defenses” from Defendant Flo
`Health’s Answer. The Court is located at the San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. This Motion is based on the Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities set forth below, the accompanying Declaration of Kent M. Williams, the
`Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Flo Health, Inc., all other pleadings on file herein, and upon
`all other such matters as may be presented to the Court by the parties at the hearing.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1.
`Whether Flo Health’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-20, 22-27, 29-
`30, and the “Additional Affirmative Defenses” paragraph, should be stricken pursuant to FED. R.
`CIV. P. 12(f) because they are not valid affirmative defenses.
`2.
`Whether Flo Health’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 21, and 23
`should be stricken because they fail to provide “fair notice” under FED. R. CIV. P. 8.
`INTRODUCTION
`This motion is against Defendant Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo”) to strike invalid, poorly-pled, or
`
`otherwise deficient affirmative defenses. Flo alleges a total of thirty affirmative defenses, most of
`which are improperly pled and/or fail to provide “fair notice.” Nearly all of them are duplicative
`of the affirmative defenses alleged by Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.) (“Meta”) and
`Google, LLC (“Google”) who have agreed to amend.1 It is well-settled that plaintiffs should not
`
`1 E.g., See Williams Decl. ¶ 8 and Exhibit D thereto. Many of Flo’s affirmative defenses use
`language that is identical, or nearly identical, to one or both of a co-defendant’s defenses. E.g.,
`Compare Flo Aff. Def. No. 3 (“Mootness”) with Meta Aff. Def. No. 45 and Google Aff. Def. 13;
`compare Flo No. 6 (“Necessary Incident to Services”) with Meta No. 15 and Google No. 21;
`compare Flo No. 9 (“Contractual Defenses”) with Meta No. 20 and Google No. 14; compare Flo
`No. 12 with Meta No. 26 and Google No. 24. As discussed below, some of Flo’s defenses still
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`be required to puzzle over or take discovery on dozens of improperly-pled defenses, especially
`defenses that are limited to boilerplate language devoid of factual support, or “negative” defenses
`that should not have been asserted in the first place. Plaintiffs raised these issues individually with
`Flo, Meta and Google, and although Meta and Google are open to amending their answers, Flo has
`not made a similar agreement. Any agreement with Meta and Google will be meaningless if
`Plaintiffs still have to take discovery on those same defenses because Flo continues to assert them.
`Thus, Plaintiffs bring the instant motion to strike Flo Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-
`20, 22-27, 29-30, and the “Additional Affirmative Defenses” paragraph, as invalid “negative”
`defenses, and to strike Affirmative Defense Nos. 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 21, and 23 because they
`allege no facts or otherwise fail to provide the “fair notice” required by the Rules.
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiffs are users of Flo’s app, which collects information about users’ menstrual cycles,
`
`ovulation, pregnancy, and other private information. Plaintiffs allege that Flo improperly shared
`this data with third parties, including co-defendants Meta and Google, in violation of their statutory
`and contractual obligations under state and federal law.
`
`The first of these cases was filed over a year and a half ago, and a Consolidated Class
`Action Complaint, alleging fourteen separate claims, was served and filed on September 2, 2021.
`Declaration of Kent M. Williams (“Williams Decl.”) ¶ 2; ECF No. 64. Defendants moved to
`dismiss the entirety of the Consolidated Complaint on various grounds, including for failure to
`state a claim and lack of standing. Williams Decl. ¶ 4; ECF Nos. 86 & 93. After briefing and oral
`argument, in a well-reasoned opinion, the Court dismissed with leave to amend all of the claims
`against Defendant AppsFlyer, the unjust enrichment claims against Meta, Google, and Flurry (the
`“Non-Flo Defendants”), and the Stored Communications Act claim against Flo. The Court held
`that the rest of Plaintiffs’ claims were adequately pled, rejected each of Defendants’ other
`
`contain references to “Meta” instead of Flo, further indicating that Flo did not take the necessary
`care and deliberation in promulgating its affirmative defenses. See Flo Aff. Def. Nos. 23
`(“License”), 27 ((“Excessive Fines”), & 30 (“Double Recovery”).
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`arguments, and denied the balance of Defendants’ motion. Williams Decl. ¶ 5; ECF No. 158.
`Thus, thirteen of Plaintiffs’ claims remain in this case. Williams Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`On August 8, 2022, with only two months of discovery remaining,2 Defendants Meta,
`Google,3 and Flo filed Answers that included a total of one hundred and fourteen somewhat-
`overlapping affirmative Defenses.4 See ECF Nos. 173-75; Williams Decl. ¶¶ 3. Plaintiffs notified
`these three Defendants, in a series of meet-and-confers, that many enumerated defenses were
`improper “negative” defenses redundant of previous denials, and/or that failed to allege facts
`sufficient to put Plaintiffs on “fair notice” of the substance of the defenses. Plaintiffs’ counsel
`explained the substance of their objections with respect to each of the defenses and demanded that
`the defendants strike them.5 After meeting and conferring, Meta informed Plaintiffs that it would
`amend its answer on Monday, August 29, 2022, and Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation with
`Google to extend the applicable deadlines while the parties work through Plaintiffs’ objections.6
`See ECF No. 180.
`
`Flo, however, refuses to amend its defenses. Counsel for Plaintiffs provided caselaw to
`Flo’s counsel explaining the pleading standards for affirmative defenses, and also sent an
`enumerated list of the objections and the defenses to which each objection applies. In an August
`26, 2022 meet and confer, Flo’s counsel provided limited additional facts regarding one or two
`defenses during the meet and confer process, but refused to add those facts to the defenses.7 When
`Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that most of Flo’s defenses also do not state the claims to which they
`apply, Flo’s counsel retorted, “all of them.” Counsel for both sides agreed they had reached an
`
`
`2 The Court’s original Scheduling Order set a discovery deadline of October 14, 2022. See
`Williams Decl. ¶ 3; ECF No. 76 at 2. Since then, the parties have agreed to extend the discovery
`schedule by four months. See ECF No. 176.
`3 Google’s Answer labeled them as simply, “defenses.”
`4 For a comparison of Flo’s, Meta’s and Google’s affirmative defenses, see Williams Decl. Ex. D.
`5 Wiliams Decl. ¶ 9.
`6 Williams Decl. ¶ 10.
`7 Williams Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`impasse, which led to the filing of this motion.8
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`An affirmative defense is one that precludes liability even if all elements of the plaintiff’s
`
`claim are proven. Sherwin–Williams Co. v. Courtesy Oldsmobile–Cadillac, Inc., 2016 WL 615335,
`at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (citation omitted). If a purported affirmative defense only addresses
`an alleged fact or the elements of a cause of action, it is not an affirmative defense and should be
`stricken as redundant. Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation, Case No. 20-cv-
`06850-MMC, slip. op., 2022 WL 2390991 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2022) (citing Zivkovic v.
`Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Sherwin–Williams,
`2016 WL 615335 at *2 (citing Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173
`(N.D. Cal. 2010); Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973–974 (9th Cir. 2010)
`(noting that allegations are properly stricken as redundant if they appear elsewhere in a pleading).
`
`A number of Flo’s defenses are not “affirmative defenses” at all. Specifically, Flo
`Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-20, 22-27, and 29-30 allege only that Plaintiffs failed
`to plead the elements of claims asserted in the Complaint, or otherwise deny Plaintiffs’ well-pled
`allegations, rather than asserting a true defense for which Flo bears the burden of proof. See Perez
`v. Gordon & Wong Law Group, P.C., No. 11-CV-03323-LHK, 2012 WL 1029425, at *7 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (explaining that “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proof on an affirmative
`defense”). These “negative defenses” should be stricken from Flo’s Answer, along with the invalid
`“Additional Affirmative Defenses” paragraph. See Section I, below.
`
`Many of Flo’s defenses suffer from a separate defect, in that they are insufficiently pled
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which describes the types of infirmities that the Court
`is authorized to strike. “Fair notice ... requires that the defendant state the nature and grounds for
`the affirmative defense.” Varrasso v. Barksdale, 2016 WL 1375594, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016);
`
`8 See Williams Decl. ¶¶11-12.
`
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`Leos v. Rasey, 2016 WL 1162658, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016); Uriarte v. Schwarzenegger,
`2012 WL 1622237, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2012). At a minimum, the Rules require a defendant
`to provide “some factual basis” for its affirmative defenses. Sherwin–Williams, 2016 WL 615335,
`at *2 (citation omitted); Beco Dairy Automation, Inc. v. Global Tech Systems, Inc., 2015 WL
`9583012, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2015) (citation omitted). Simply referring to a doctrine or
`statute is insufficient to afford fair notice. Wild v. Benchmark Pest Control, Inc., 2016 WL
`1046925, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2016); Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 2015 WL 7272222, at *4
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015); Beco Dairy, 2015 WL 5732595.
`
`“Conditional” affirmative defenses (e.g., “to the extent that”) and other affirmative
`defenses that lack supporting facts should be stricken and are potentially sanctionable under Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 11(b) for making an allegation without evidentiary support. Greenspan v. Platinum
`Healthcare Group, LLC, 2021 WL 978899 at * *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2021) (condemning such
`“prophylactic” defenses). As the Greenspan Court explained with respect to improper
`“prophylactic” defenses:
`
`
`The assertion of prophylactic affirmative defenses is not harmless. It expands
`discovery in the case and makes it harder to get cases to resolution. A plaintiff's
`lawyer faced with a multitude of prophylactic affirmative defenses has to serve
`interrogatories to ferret out the factual basis for each defense. If there is not such a
`basis, the plaintiff's counsel either has to file a motion or persuade defense counsel
`to withdraw that defense. All for a defense that should not have been in the case in
`the first place. Permitting such a practice would not help “secure the just, speedy,
`and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
`It would do just the opposite by adding to the proceedings.
`
`
`2021 WL 978899 at *3. The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and
`money “litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues” before trial. See Fantasy, Inc.
`v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994);
`Barnes v. AT & T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1170 (N.D.
`Cal. 2010) (citing Fantasy) (“The purposes of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and
`
`5
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`money litigating spurious issues.”). Flo Affirmative Defense Nos. 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 21, and
`23 raise the very type of “spurious issue” that the Ninth Circuit has warned should be weeded out.
`Flo failed to allege a plausible factual basis for any of these defenses, relying instead on conclusory
`boilerplate language that, on its face, fails to meet the pleading standard. See Section II, below.
`These defenses should be stricken.
`
`FLO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NOS. 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 18-20, 22-27, 29-30, AND THE
`“ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE” PARAGRAPH, ARE IMPROPER
`“NEGATIVE” DEFENSES AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
`Flo’s affirmative defenses 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, and the
`
`“Additional Affirmative Defenses” clause, should be stricken because they are not affirmative
`defenses at all.
`
`Defenses that merely deny or attempt to rebut Plaintiffs’ allegations are not truly
`affirmative defenses and fail as a matter of law. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, a defense
`alleging “that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.” Zivkovic v.
`S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit
`Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (striking with
`prejudice defenses that the court recognized as “merely rebuttal against the evidence presented by
`the plaintiff” rather than legitimate affirmative defenses); Delson v. Barron Egg Shop of
`MontClair, No. C 12-06454 RS, 2013 WL 12411137, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) (“negative
`defenses” that “simply provide[] a basis to negate an element of plaintiff’s prima facie case” are
`“negative defenses” that “must be stricken.”); Munoz v. PHH Corp., No. 1:08-cv-0759-AWI-
`BAM, 2013 WL 1278509, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) (“[D]enials of the allegations in the
`complaint or allegations that the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of his claim are not affirmative
`defenses.”); J&J Sports Prods. v. Mendoza-Govan, No. C10-05123, 2011 WL 1544886, at *3
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) (same) (internal citation omitted).
`
`The attacks on Plaintiffs’ pleadings are one example of Flo’s invalid affirmative defenses.
`
`6
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`
`Like the defense rejected in Barnes, Flo’s Defense No. 1 (Failure to State a Claim) alleges that
`Plaintiffs “fail[] to state a claim for which relief may be granted[,]” but “[f]ailure to state a claim
`is not a proper affirmative defense[.]” 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1174; see also Jacobson v. Persolve,
`LLC, No. 14-cv-00735-LHK, 2014 WL 4090809, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (same); Joe
`Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Williams, No. 2:14-cv-02663-JAM-AC, 2016 WL 5109474, at *2 (E.D.
`Cal. Sept. 19, 2016) (same). Defense No. 20, which alleges that Plaintiffs failed to allege their
`claims “with sufficient particularity,” also is not a valid affirmative defense. See Castellano Access
`v. Access Premier Realty7, Inc., 2015 WL 7423821 at *2 (“Defendants assert that Plaintiffs'
`Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that
`the allegations are not pled with sufficient particularity to constitute viable claims. These
`assertions, however, are not affirmative defenses.”).
`Many of Flo’s defenses merely deny elements of Plaintiff claims. Defense No. 8 (No
`
`Standing) simply disputes that Plaintiffs have Article III standing, but “lack of standing is not in
`fact an affirmative defense.” See Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 306 F.R.D. 279, 286 (N.D.
`Cal. 2015) (striking standing defense). Similarly, Defense No. 9 (Contractual Defenses), No. 18
`(Contractual Defenses – No Damages) and No. 19 (Contractual Defenses – No Liability), all
`of which claim that the contracts between Plaintiffs and Flo limit Plaintiffs’ right to recover, merely
`deny that the alleged contracts afford a cause of action for damages, and thus are improper.
`Defense No 11 (Adequate Remedy at Law) re-denies the allegation that Plaintiffs have
`
`no adequate remedy at law. Compare Complaint ¶¶ 413 & 424 with Flo Answer ¶¶ 413 & 424.
`Defense No. 24, which alleges that Plaintiffs were aware of “the occurrences that form the bases
`of their claims as alleged in the Complaint and thus were not deceived,” just reiterates Flo’s
`previous denials that Plaintiffs were deceived. Compare Complaint ¶¶ 356, 358, 370, 379 with
`Flo’s Answer at ¶¶ 356, 358, 370, 379. Defense No. 25 (Speculative Remedies) merely denies
`that Plaintiffs can quantify their damages with sufficient evidence. See Crescent Point Energy,
`2022 WL 2390991 at *3 (striking defense alleging the damages sought by the plaintiff were
`7
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`“impermissibly remote and speculative” Likewise, Defense No. 26 simply re-denies that Plaintiffs
`are entitled to payment of their attorney fees. Defense No. 22 (Improper Class Action) merely
`denies the elements of Plaintiffs’ class action claims (and without any supporting facts).9
`
`Some of Flo’s defenses are invalid because they do not operate to defeat Plaintiffs’ claims,
`but only to limit their damages. Defense Nos 13 (Punitive Damages—Unconstitutional), No. 27
`(Protection From Excessive Fines) (apparently a cut-and-paste from one of co-defendant Meta’s
`prophylactic defenses, since it still has the “Meta” reference), No. 29 (Unauthorized Remedies),
`and No. 30 (Double Recovery) (another “prophylactic” defense that bars recovery “to the extent”
`Plaintiffs recover damages from another source) are not a valid affirmative defenses, because they
`would only limit Plaintiffs’ damages, not defeat their claims. See United States v. Academy
`Mortgage Corporation, slip. op. 2022 WL 7056017 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2020) (holding that
`an “Eighth Amendment claim for excessive damages is not an affirmative defense, as it does not
`operate to defeat [the plaintiff’s] claim. It would only limit damages.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Finally, the last paragraph, which asserts that “Flo may have additional defenses that cannot
`be articulated at this time” and “reserves the right to assert additional defenses” is improper as this
`is not a defense at all. See E.E.O.C. v. Timeless Investments, Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1055
`(E.D. Cal. 2010) (“ . . . the mere “‘reservation of affirmative defenses’ is not an affirmative
`defense.”). Therefore, this paragraph should be stricken, along with the other invalid defenses
`described above.
`III.
`
`FLO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NOS. 4-5, 7, 10, 12, 14-17, 21, AND 23 FAIL TO
`PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
`
`In addition to inherently defective “negative” defenses, Flo asserts affirmative defenses
`that fail because they do not allege any facts and/or identify the claims to which they pertain,
`thereby depriving Plaintiffs of “fair notice” of the defenses. Defense No. 4, which asserts that Flo’s
`
`
`9 This defense trails off with the words, “the proposed class action would not be,” but Flo still does
`not think an amendment is necessary.
`
`8
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FLO HEALTH INC.’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-00757-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 184 Filed 08/29/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`
`actions were “privileged, justified, or excused by operation of law,” does not contain any facts or
`indicate what law Flo is referring to. See Legacy v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 2622953 at *5
`(S.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) (striking a “Justification/Privilege” defense as insufficiently pled). Also
`lacking any facts are Defense Nos. 5 (Consent), No. 7 (Unjust Enrichment), 14 (Waiver), 15
`(Estoppel), 16 (Laches)10 and 17 (Unclean Hands),11 which assert equitable doctrines but allege
`no factual or other support

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket