LONGHINI
v.
AVENTURA MALL VENTURE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses, allowing one defense to be amended and others to be treated as general denials.
Plaintiff moved to strike all of Defendant Aventura Mall Venture's affirmative defenses. The parties reached an agreement where the Defendant would wi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(F) (Motion To Strike) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Doug Longhini’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Amended Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. (the “Motion”), seeking to strike the affirmative defenses asserted in Defendant Aventura Mall Venture’s (“Defendant”) Answer, ECF No. (“Answer”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all supporting and opposing submissions, the applicable law, and the record in this case. For the reasons discussed below and the agreement of the parties, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” granting courts broad discretion in making this determination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1318-19 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Williams v. Eckerd Family Youth Alt., 908 F. Supp. 908, 910 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Under Rule 12(f), “[a] motion to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Harty v. SRA/Palm Trails Plaza, LLC, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1218 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also BB In Tech. Co. v. JAF, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 632, 641 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (same); Home Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Prescient, Inc., 2007 WL 2412834, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2007) (same); Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1187 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (same).
Courts have broad discretion in considering a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
See, e.g.,
Sakolsky v. Rubin Mem’l Chapel, LLC, 2007 WL 3197530, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2007).
Irrespective of the Court’s broad discretion, this ability to strike is considered to be drastic, and is often disfavored. Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (quoting Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., Fla., 306 F. 2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962)); Fabing v. Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 2013 WL 593842, at *2 n.2 (M.D. Fla. February 15, 2013) (calling Rule 12(f) a “draconian sanction”).
In the Motion, Plaintiff argues that all of Defendant’s affirmative defenses (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) should be stricken. In response, Defendant agrees to withdraw affirmative defenses numbers 1 and 3. In addition, Defendant agrees to withdraw affirmative defenses numbers 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, and requests that they be treated as general denials. Plaintiff does not oppose
Defendant’s request. See ECF No. . As such, the Court will treat affirmative defenses 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 as denials. Pujals ex rel. El Rey De Los Habanos, Inc. v. Garcia, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1328 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Jackson, 921 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1372-73 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
Finally, Defendant agrees to amend affirmative defense number 6 to state as follows: The parking garages are existing facilities that were built prior to the effective date of the ADA, and thus the ADA only requires that Defendant remove barriers where such removal is readily achievable.
Accordingly, Defendant need not comply with the applicable ADA standards for new construction and is not required to make any changes, modifications, alterations and/or accommodations that are technically not feasible, structurally Case No. 19-cv-23019-BLOOM/Louis impracticable, and/or would change or alter the usability of the facility. ECF No. . Plaintiff agrees to Defendant’s proposed amendment to affirmative defense number 6. As such, the Court will permit Defendant to assert affirmative defense number 6 as stated above.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 9, 2019.
BETHBLOOM i sts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (57 total)
-
Longhini v. Aventura Mall Venture, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2019)…e from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter,” granting courts broad discretion in making this determination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1318-19 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Williams v. Eckerd Family Youth Alt., 908 F. Supp. 908, 910 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Under Rule 12(f), “[a] motion to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cau…1 / 2
-
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Termination Team, LLC, 294 F.R.D. 668 (S.D. Fla. 2021)…ent defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). District Courts have “broad discretion in considering a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).” Morrison v. Exec. Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317–18 (S.D. Fla. 2005). Despite this discretion, “‘[a] motion to strike is a drastic remedy[,]’ which is disfavored by the courts and ‘will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejud…
-
Romero v. S. Waste Sys., LLC, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2009)…it is insufficient as a matter of law. “A defense is insufficient as a matter of law if, on the face of the pleadings, it is patently frivolous, or if it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Morrison v. Executive Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1318 (S.D.Fla.2005) (quoting Anchor Hocking Corp. v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 419 F.Supp. 992, 1000 (M.D.Fla.1976)). Affirmative defenses are also subject to the general pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), which requires a “short…
Previewing 3 of 57 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
- Augustus v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Escambia Cnty., 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Morrison v. Executive Aircraft Refinishing, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10190 (S.D. Fla. 2005)
- Longhini v. Aventura Mall Venture, 434 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
- Harty v. SRA/Palm Trails Plaza, LLC, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
- Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
- Williams v. Eckerd Family Youth Alternative, 908 F. Supp. 908 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Pujals Ex rel. El Rey de Los Habanos v. Garcia, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2011)