Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coach, Inc. v. Sun Super Market, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

February 10, 2014

COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
SUN SUPER MARKET, INC. and MI KYONG ROJAS, Defendants.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to strike answer to amended complaint (DE 22) and defendants' motion to amend answer (DE 29). These motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, the court grants defendants' motion and denies plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this trademark infringement action to which defendants responded November 21, 2013, asserting eight affirmative defenses. On December 12, 2013, plaintiffs moved to strike all of these affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs assert they are insufficiently pleaded and/or are improper affirmative defenses to an action of the instant nature.

Defendants did not respond to the motion to strike; rather, they filed a motion to amend answer. Defendants seek to add additional facts and information to their affirmative defenses. In this posture, plaintiffs' motion to strike appeared moot; therefore, the court addressed the parties by text order on December 27, 2013.

The court ordered defendants "to file their proposed amended answer within seven days together with notice informing the court, where defendants state they have sought consent, whether plaintiffs consent to the form of the proposed amended answer."

Defendant responded with the proposed amended answer and notice that plaintiffs consent to the form of the proposed answer, with the exception of defendants' first affirmative defense, to which plaintiffs' maintain their motion to strike. Accordingly, the court will limit its discussion to whether defendants' first affirmative defense, that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted in whole or in part for reasons expressly given, should be stricken. The court first considers defendants' motion to amend, as its disposition may affect decision on plaintiffs' motion to strike.

COURT'S DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Amend

Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits, rather than disposing of them on technicalities. See Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 425 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be denied "only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile." Laber , 438 F.3d at 426.

Defendants noted that plaintiffs agree to the form of the proposed amended answer, which adds additional factual material to the affirmative defenses, although plaintiffs maintain their argument that the first affirmative defense is factually deficient. There is no indication that plaintiffs believe defendants' amendments are prejudicial, made in bad faith, or futile. Moreover, defendants' amendments appear to be in response to plaintiffs' motion to strike, and thus are intended to remedy alleged deficiencies that plaintiffs previously identified. Accordingly, the court finds it in the interest of justice to grant defendants' motion to amend answer.

B. Motion to Strike

A district court may, on motion of a party or on its own initiative, strike from a pleading an "insufficient defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). "A defense is insufficient if it is clearly invalid as a matter of law." Spell v. McDaniel , 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1112 (E.D. N.C. 1984). "Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic." Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore , 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). Therefore, motions to strike are strictly considered, see Godfredson v. JBC Legal Group, P.C. , 387 F.Supp.2d 543, 547 (E.D. N.C. 2005), and the court is required to "view the pleading under attack in a light most favorable to the pleader." Racick v. Dominion Law Associates , 270 F.R.D. 228, 232 (E.D. N.C. 2010). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.