United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Airtex Manufacturing LLLP, doing business as Engineered Air,
provided defendant Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. roof
top air equipment. In turn, plaintiff expected under the
parties' agreements to receive $1, 445, 114.00. Plaintiff
instead received far less: $1, 372, 151.25 less. Or, so
plaintiff alleges. (See generally Doc. 1-1.) In
responding to plaintiff's allegations, defendant asserts
various affirmative defenses. (See generally Doc.
7.) As to two of those affirmative defenses, plaintiff now
moves the court either to strike the defenses or order
defendant to state the defenses more definitely. Because the
defenses afford plaintiff fair notice and require no
responsive pleading, the court denies plaintiff's Motion
To Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses Or
Alternatively Motion For More Definite Statement (Doc. 10).
Motion to Strike
to strike are generally disfavored.” Constr. Indus.
Laborers Pension Fund v. Explosive Contractors, Inc.,
No. 12-2624-EFM, 2013 WL 3984371, at *1 (D. Kan. 2013).
Still, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes this
court the discretion to strike from defendant's answer
any “insufficient defense.” To be sufficient, a
defense need not comply with “the pleading standards of
Twombly and Iqbal.” Falley v.
Friends Univ., 787 F.Supp.2d 1255, 1259 (D. Kan. 2011).
Rather, a pleaded affirmative defense need only be
“affirmatively state[d]” in “short and
plain terms.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(1)(a) & (c)(1);
see also Ross, 2019 WL 5188673 at *1-*2. A defense
so stated may be struck only if:
• “no circumstances exist under which it can
succeed as a matter of law”;
• it fails “to provide the plaintiff with fair
• it “has no possible relation to the controversy
and may prejudice the opposing party.”
Falley, 787 F.Supp.2d at 1257. Striking an
affirmative defense, however, is “a ‘drastic
remedy.'” Id. at 1259 (quotation omitted).
And at this litigation's early stage, “[t]he remedy
for striking defenses . . . is often to allow
Motion for a More Definite Statement
for a more definite statement are no less
“disfavored.” Peterson v. Brownlee, 314
F.Supp.2d 1150, 1155-56 (D. Kan. 2004) (“Such motions
are disfavored in light of the liberal discovery provided
under the federal rules”). Still, under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(e), a party authorized to respond to a
pleading may move for a more definite statement of that
pleading if that pleading is “so vague or ambiguous
that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
The motion must “point out the defects complained of
and the details desired.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). But the
court will not grant the motion “merely because the
pleading lacks detail;” rather, the omitted but desired
details must be reasonably necessary “to enable a
responsive pleading in the form of a denial or
admission.” Peterson, 314 F.Supp.2d at 1156.
motion focuses on these two of defendant's ...