`
`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