Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D co-founded an LLC in 1998, in which P owned a 30% member interest. IP alleges that D falsified documents in 2017 to make it seem as though P has only an 8% ownership interest in the LLC. P sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., declaratory and injunctive relief, and fraud through concealment. D asserted 13 affirmative defenses and one counterclaim for declaratory relief. The affirmative defenses are: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) lack of proximate cause; (3) conduct of third parties; (4) comparative fault; (5) apportionment; (6) not a substantial factor; (7) estoppel; (8) statute of limitations; (9) doctrine of laches; (10) failure to join a necessary party; (11) lack of standing; (12) punitive damages; and (13) defendant acted reasonably. P now moves to strike all affirmative defenses under rule 12(f). P argues that defenses 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13 fail to meet the pleading requirements set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. P argues that affirmative defenses 1, 6, 11, and 12 are improper because a 'defense which demonstrates that the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.' P argues that affirmative defense 10 (failure to join a necessary party) should be stricken because the Court already rejected it.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.