The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
SIXELA INVESTMENT GROUP CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00277
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
HOPE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
ET AL WHITEHURST
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Communities Unlimited, Inc.’s
(“Communities”) Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. (Rec. Doc. 169). Plaintiff,
Sixela Investment Group (“Sixela”) filed an Amended Answer in lieu of an
objection. (Rec. Doc. 183). Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments
of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained below, the Motion is DENIED as
to Sixela’s Affirmative Defenses and DENIED as moot as to Sixela’s Answers to
Communities’ First Supplemental Counterclaim.
Facts and Procedural History
Pertinent to the present matter, Sixela filed this action on March 3, 2023,
against Co-Defendant Hope Federal Credit Union (“Hope”) and Communities.
(Rec. Doc. 1). On August 3, 2023, Communities filed an Answer to the original
Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 21). On September 7, 2023, Sixela filed an Amended
Complaint against Hope and Communities. (Rec. Doc. 25). On October 6, 2023,
Communities filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint
(Rec. Doc. 30). On October 27, 2023, Communities filed a Supplemental and
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with Supplemental Counterclaim to
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 37). On November 13, 2023, Sixela
filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Communities’ Counterclaim. (Rec.
Doc. 42). On August 16, 2024, Sixela’s current counsel enrolled after prior counsel
was granted leave to withdraw. (Rec. Docs. 66, 67, & 69).
On September 16, 2024, Communities filed a Motion for Leave to File Second
Supplemental and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 77).
Though the Motion was deemed opposed, and prior to the Court’s ruling on the
Motion, on October 29, 2024, Sixela filed an Answer to Communities’ proposed
Second Supplemental and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim. (Rec. Docs. 98 & 77-9). Accordingly, on November
6, 2024, the Court granted Communities’ Motion (Rec. Doc. 101) and the Second
Supplemental and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim to Sixela’s Amended Complaint was filed into the
record. (Rec. Doc. 102).
On November 12, 2024, Communities filed a Motion to Strike Nonresponsive
Pleadings and for Consideration of Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 103) requesting the Court
to strike Sixela’s Answer to their Second and Supplemental Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim and the exhibits
attached thereto (Rec. Doc. 98). After briefing and argument, on November 27,
2024, the Court granted Communities’ request to strike Sixela’s Answer to
Communities’ Second and Supplemental Amended Answer and Affirmative
Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim (Rec. Doc. 98) and the exhibits
attached thereto and ordered Sixela to file an amended pleading within 10 days.
(Rec. Doc. 111). The Court denied the request for sanctions subject to the right to
re-urge. (Id.).
On December 4, 2024, Sixela filed an Amended Answer to Communities’
Second and Supplemental Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim. (Rec. Doc. 112). After several requests for extensions
to amend the Amended Answer (Rec. Docs. 115, 117, & 119), on January 23, 2025,
Sixela filed another Amended Answer to Communities’ Second and Supplemental
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim.
(Rec. Doc. 123). On February 25, 2025, Communities filed a Motion for Sanctions
and/or Reurging of Consideration of Sanctions contending that Sixela’s amended
pleading1 still “has repeatedly failed to respond to the substance of allegations; has
1 Communities refers to Rec. Doc. 118 as the amended pleading; however, Rec. Doc. 118 was the
proposed amended pleading while Rec. Doc. 123 is the actual pleading of record.
asserted blanket denials where at least some of the allegations should have been
admitted; has asserted factual allegations that are void of evidentiary support (and in
certain cases directly contradicted by evidence); has denied factual allegations in
spite of evidence supporting admission (including prior admissions by [Sixela] in
discovery responses and even the sworn deposition testimony of [Sixela]’s
members); and has asserted unsupported and/or inapplicable defenses.” (Rec. Doc.
130, p. 5).
Following briefing, oral argument, and after discovering that Communities
attached the incorrect exhibits to their pleading, on March 20, 2025, the Court denied
Communities’ Motion and ordered them to refile their Second Supplemental and
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim
to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 102), or an amended version, with the
correct exhibits attached within 5 days. (Rec. Doc. 159). On March 25, 2025,
Communities filed their corrected version of the Second Supplemental and Amended
Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim, (Rec.
Doc. 162), and, on April 2, 2025, Sixela filed the Amended Answer to Communities’
Second Supplemental and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim. (Rec. Doc. 167). On April 22, 2025, Communities
filed the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions presently before the Court contending
that Sixela’s pleading again fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11. (Rec. Doc. 169). After argument and discussion on May 1, 2025, on May 2,
2025, Sixela filed an Amended Answer to Defendant Communities Unlimited, Inc’s
Second Supplemental and Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First
Supplemental Counterclaim. (Rec. Doc. 183).
Law and Analysis
I. Admissions and Denials
Communities maintains that Sixela’s Answers (Rec. Doc. 167) to Paragraphs
4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 31 of their First Supplemental Counterclaim are deficient.
(Rec. Doc. 169). However, on May 2, 2025, Sixela filed an Amended Answer to
Defendant Communities Unlimited, Inc’s Second Supplemental and Amended
Answer and Affirmative Defenses with First Supplemental Counterclaim. (Rec.
Doc. 183). Accordingly, Communities’ Motion as to Sixela’s Answers to
Communities’ First Supplemental Counterclaim is DENIED as moot, and the Court
will order Communities to file any challenges to Sixela’s new Answer by May 12,
2025.
II. Affirmative Defenses
Communities maintains that Sixela’s Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth
Affirmative Defenses are deficient. Affirmative defenses are pleadings governed by
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party is required to “state in short
and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” and “affirmatively state
any avoidance or affirmative defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A); 8(c)(1). In
Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit held that
affirmative defenses are subject to the same pleading requirements as a complaint
and articulated a fair notice standard for pleading affirmative defenses. Id. at 362.
Under this standard, a party is required to plead an affirmative defense “with enough
specificity or factual particularity to give the plaintiff ‘fair notice’ of the defense that
is being advanced.” Id. “The ‘fair notice’ pleading requirement is met if the
defendant ‘sufficiently articulated the defense so that the plaintiff was not a victim
of unfair surprise.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Communities moves to strike Sixela’s affirmative defenses. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes the Court to strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. “[M]otions
to strike are viewed with disfavor and infrequently granted.” Ross v. Dejarnetti, 514
F. Supp. 3d 845, 850 (E.D. La. 2021)(citing Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction
of Escambia, Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962)). “[D]istrict courts enjoy
considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to strike.” Spoon v. Bayou Bridge
Pipeline, LLC, 335 F.R.D. 468, 470 (M.D. La. 2020). The court in Spoon further
explained:
Typically, it is clear on the face of the pleadings whether the challenged
matter should be stricken under Rule 12(f). “Redundant” matter
consists of allegations that constitute “a needless repetition of other
averments in the pleadings.” “Immaterial” matter is that which “has no
essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses
being pleaded,” such as superfluous historical allegations, “or a
statement of unnecessary particulars in connection with and descriptive
of that which is material.” “Impertinent” matter overlaps with
“immaterial” matter and “consists of statements that do not pertain, and
are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Finally, “scandalous”
matters improperly casts a derogatory light on someone, most typically
on a party to the action, but “it is not enough that the matter offends the
sensibilities of the objecting party” or the person who is the subject of
the statements in the pleading, “if the challenged allegations describe
acts or events that are relevant to the action.” Any doubt about whether
the challenged material is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.
Id. at 470-71 (citations omitted).
Ultimately, the standard for striking is high:
Partly because of the practical difficulty of deciding cases without a
factual record it is well established that the action of striking a pleading
should be sparingly used by the courts. It is a drastic remedy to be
resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice. The motion
to strike should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has no
possible relation to the controversy.
Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862,
868 (5th Cir. 1962) (cleaned up), quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953).
The complained of Affirmative Defenses raise duress, misrepresentation,
breach of contract, and unclean hands. (Rec. Doc. 167, pp. 7-10). The Court finds
that Sixela’s Affirmative Defenses provide Communities, in “short and plain terms,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1), “with enough specificity or factual particularity to give
[Communities] ‘fair notice’ of the defense that is being advanced.” Woodfield, 193
F.3d at 362. The Court also does not find these Affirmative Defenses to be
insufficient or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous to warrant striking
under Rule 12(f). Accordingly, Communities’ Motion is DENIED as to Sixela’s
Affirmative Defenses.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, Communities’ Motion for Contempt and
Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 169) is DENIED as to Sixela’s Affirmative Defenses and
DENIED as moot as to Sixela’s Answers to Communities’ First Supplemental
Counterclaim. Communities shall file any challenges to Sixela’s new Answer (Rec.
Doc. 183) by May 12, 2025.
THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this 8" day of May, 2025.
(wh &
CAROL B. WHITEHURST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE