American Mariculture, Inc. v. Syaqua Americas, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

AMERICAN MARICULTURE, INC.,

a Florida corporation and

AMERICAN PENAEID, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 2:20-cv-711-JES-MRM

SYAQUA AMERICAS, INC., a

Florida corporation and

SYAQUA GROUP PTE. LTD.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Renewed

Motion to Strike Defendant Syaqua Americas, Inc.'s Answer and

Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #72) filed on July 29, 2021. Syaqua

filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #76) on August 12, 2021.

On July 27, 2021, the Court issued an Order (Doc. #71) denying

plaintiffs’ first motion to strike for failure to comply with Local

Rule 3.01(g), but noting as follows:

Motions to strike are generally

disfavored due to their drastic

nature. Id.; see also Hamblen [v.

Davol, Inc., No. 8:17-cv-1613-T-

33TGW, 2018 WL 1493251, at *3 (M.D.

Fla. Mar. 27, 2018)]; Royal Ins. Co.

of Am. v. M/Y Anastasia, No. 95-cv-

30498, 1997 WL 608722, at *3 (N.D.

Fla. Jan. 30, 1997).

Courts in this District have held

that “[a]n affirmative defense will

only be stricken . . . if the

of law.’” Hamblen, 2018 WL 1493251,

at *3 (quoting Microsoft Corp. v.

Jesse’s Computs. & Repair, Inc., 211

F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002)).

An affirmative defense is

insufficient as a matter of law if:

(1) on the face of the pleadings, it

is patently frivolous, or (2) it is

clearly invalid as a matter of law.

Jesse’s Computs. & Repair, Inc., 211

F.R.D. at 683.

United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Spartan

Sec. Grp., LTD, No. 8:19-cv-448-T-33CPT, 2019

WL 3323477, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2019).

Additionally, the Court notes that no

prejudice from the delay has been shown.

(Id., p. 2.) Plaintiffs elected to file a second motion, which

is now before the Court.

Plaintiffs argue that paragraphs 1, 4-6, 9-13, 15-19, 21-23,

and 33 are mere denials and therefore should be stricken as

insufficient and redundant. “However, when a defendant labels a

specific denial as an affirmative defense, the proper remedy is

not to strike the defense, but instead to treat it as a denial.”

Adams v. Jumpstart Wireless Corp., 294 F.R.D. 668, 671 (S.D. Fla.

2013) (citations omitted). The Court will not strike these

defenses but treat them as mere denials.

Relying on the undersigned’s 2014 Opinion and Order, Colon v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-464-FTM-29, 2014 WL 1588463, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2014), finding “[a]ffirmative defenses must

follow the general pleading requirements contained in Rule 8 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”, plaintiffs argue that none

fair notice. “Fully half do not qualify as affirmative defenses

(and state no facts), while the other half constitute conclusory

allegations without any stated factual support.” (Doc. #72, p.

7.)

This action was filed in 2020, under the previous Track Two

Notice and Corporate Disclosure Order (Doc. #6) and before the

adoption of the Fort Myers Division’s Civil Action Order issued in

all cases. In the Civil Action Order, the Court specifically

directs the “movant must review Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v.

Ziplocal, LP, No. 8:12-cv-755-T-26TBM, 2012 WL 12920185 (M.D. Fla.

Sept. 17, 2012), and United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Spartan

Sec. Grp., LTD, No. 8:19-cv-448-T-33CPT, 2019 WL 3323477 (M.D.

Fla. July 24, 2019), and then explain in the motion why the

requested relief is warranted notwithstanding the rationale and

authorities cited therein.” See attached Civil Action Order.

In the Court's view, Plaintiff has failed to

establish that the affirmative defenses have

no possible relationship to the controversy,

may confuse the issues, or otherwise cause

prejudice to Plaintiff. See United States v.

MLU Serv., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1330

(M.D. Fla. 2008) (observing that a motion to

strike under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure should only be granted if

the matter sought to be omitted has no

possible relationship to the controversy, may

confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a

party) (quoting Reyher v. Trans World

Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D.

Fla 1995)). As the Court in MLU Services

further explained, “[b]ecause this standard is

rarely met, ‘[m]otions to strike are generally

disfavored by the Court and are often

considered time wasters.’” 544 F. Supp. 2d at

1330 (quoting Somerset Pharm., Inc. Vv.

Kimball, 168 F.R.D. 69, 71 (M.D. Fla. 1996)).

Additionally, this Court favors the view of

other district courts that the pleading

requirements of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d

929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S.

662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)

do not apply to affirmative defenses. See

Chevron Corp. v. Donzinger, --- F. Supp. 2d -

---, 2012 WL 3538749, at *16, n.201 (S.D.N.Y.

July 31, 2012) (explaining the differing views

of district courts nationwide on the

application of Twombly and Iqbal to the

pleading of affirmative defenses). Plaintiff

may renew its objections to the affirmative

defenses within the context of a motion for

summary judgment after the close of discovery.

Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Ziplocal, LP, No. 8:12-CV-755-T-

26TBM, 2012 WL 12920185, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2012). □□□□□

Court finds that the affirmative defenses are sufficiently stated

and there is no argument that any of them are frivolous.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Strike Defendant Syaqua

Americas, Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #72) is

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 24th day

of August 2021.

NON Zé AKL

JGHN E. STEELE

Sq IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Counsel of Record