Pertz
Pertz v. Heartland Realty Investors, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 SARAH PERTZ, Case No. 19-cv-06330-CRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER STRIKING AFFIRMATIVE
v. DEFENSES
HEARTLAND REALTY INVESTORS, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13 The Court previously struck thirty-two affirmative defenses asserted in Heartland Realty 14 Investors’ and Heartland Santa Rosa Limited Partnership’s (collectively, “Heartland”) Answer 15 (dkt. 11) to Sarah Pertz’s Complaint (dkt. 1). The Court found that all thirty-two defenses lacked 16 factual support and many were not affirmative defenses at all. Order Striking Affirmative 17 Defenses (dkt 23) at 2–3. Heartland’s Amended Answer (dkt. 26) asserts eleven affirmative 18 defenses. Id. at 9–10. Once again, Heartland fails to support its affirmative defenses with 19 sufficient factual allegations, and inappropriately attempts to cast allegations denying liability as 20 affirmative defenses. Pertz’s Motion to Strike (dkt. 28) is therefore GRANTED, this time with 21 prejudice.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
23 A party must…