Fodera, Jr. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et al., Case No. 19-cv-05072-WHO

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 39 Defendants.

12 INTRODUCTION As I have written before, “[m]otions to strike affirmative defenses seldom simplify litigation, and this one is no exception.” Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel, 390 F. Supp. 3d 1162, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) to strike all affirmative defenses that defendant Equinox has asserted in its Amended Answer (“AA”) is equally meritless. The hearing set for January 6, 2021 is VACATED. Equinox has alleged sufficient facts to support its affirmative defenses. They are not form recitations of standard defenses but contain specific facts and law to put plaintiffs on notice as to the basic substance of the defenses claimed. Rule 8 does not require extensive factual allegations to sustain…