X hits on this document

66 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 20

incorporated its counterclaim into its answer and because the counterclaim satisfies Rule 9(b)

with respect to certain reimbursement requests, I find that State Farm’s second and sixth

affirmative defenses satisfy Rule 9(b) to the extent that State Farm’s counterclaim does.

Therefore, I will grant in part and deny in part counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss the

second and sixth affirmative defenses to the same extent that I granted in part and denied in part

their motion to dismiss the counterclaim.

3.

No. 15: “Bases Evident” in Evidence

State Farm’s fifteenth affirmative defense states: “State Farm also incorporates the bases

evident within the documents being produced by State Farm.” (Answer at 24.) The court does

not recognize “bases evident within the documents” as an affirmative defense, and will dismiss it

accordingly. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(c)(1).

4.

No. 17: Offset

State Farm’s seventeenth affirmative defense states: “In the event plaintiff prevails on any

of its claims, the amount of recoverable damages are offset/reduced by the amount of damages

recoverable pursuant to . . . State Farm’s counterclaim.” (Id.) Counterclaim-defendants argue

that this defense should be dismissed because State Farm’s counterclaim does not satisfy the

applicable pleading standard. Because I find that portions of the counterclaim do satisfy Rule

9(b), I will deny counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss State Farm’s seventeenth

affirmative defense.

IV. Conclusion

In summary, I will deny counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud claim in

Count I, the § 4117(a) claims in Count II, the unjust enrichment claim in Count III, and the

17

Document info
Document views66
Page views68
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 22:19:59 UTC 2016
Pages20
Paragraphs418
Words5403

Comments