PARISI
v.
SABAL SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an affirmative defense which is essentially a denial should be treated as a denial with particularity under Rule 9(c), rather than stricken under Rule 12(f).
Plaintiffs sued a homeowners association under the Fair Housing Act, alleging discrimination based on denial of a reasonable accommodation for an assi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Strike First Affirmative Defense and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #32) filed on February 8, 2023. Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #33) on March 8, 2023. This is a civil action brought by plaintiffs Joseph Parisi (Parisi) and Terry Clark (Clark) (collectively Plaintiffs) under the Fair Housing Act1 (FHA) against defendant Sabal Springs Homeowners’ Association (Defendant or Sabal Springs). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant discriminated against Parisi (a person with disabilities) and Clark (a person associated with a person who has disabilities) when Sabal Springs denied Plaintiffs’ request for a
(Doc. #31, p. 8.) Plaintiffs urge the Court to strike Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense, arguing that Defendant’s affirmative defense is a mere denial and is invalid. (Doc. #32, p. 4.)
I.
A party responding to a pleading must “affirmatively state” any avoidance or affirmative defenses in its response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). “An affirmative defense is generally a defense that, if established, requires judgment for the defendant even if the plaintiff can prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.” Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F. 3d 1287, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999). On the other hand, “[a] defense which points out a defect in the plaintiff's prima facie case is not an affirmative defense.” In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc., 846 F. 2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 1988). “The purpose of Rule 8(c) is simply to guarantee that the opposing party has notice of any additional issue that may be raised at trial so that he or she is prepared to properly litigate it.” Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 842 F. 2d 260, 263 (11th Cir. 1988). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Sabal Springs’ First Affirmative Defense is in essence a denial. Nevertheless, in this case the appropriate course of action is for the court simply to treat the alleged affirmative defense as the denial “with particularity” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c). The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Strike First Affirmative Defense and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #32) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 21st day of March, 2023.
—_— . 2, _ f / = Pe
JGHE E. STEELE
5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hassan v. United States Postal Serv., 842 F.2d 260 (11th Cir. 1988)
- In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc. v. Rawson Food Serv., Inc., 846 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 1999)