"No One Likes Your Boilerplate Affirmative Defenses Here, Louie"!

There's nothing more annoying than bs objections to discovery requests or -- possibly even worse -- completely empty, vapid, boilerplate placeholder affirmative defenses (did I modify that phrase too much?).

It's good to know that Judge Seitz agrees.

Here's just an example:
Third Affirmative Defense: "Plaintiff's claims against SCOTTSDALE are barred by doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands and/or acquiescence."
This purported defense (1) lists five distinct affirmative defenses, each of which must be pled separately, (2) does not suggest how any of these defenses might apply to the instant case, (3) does not identify the elements of any of these defenses, and (4) does not provide or even suggest factual support for any of these defenses or for any elements thereof. Therefore, Scottsdale's Third Affirmative Defense fails to provide fair notice and must be stricken, with leave to re-plead.
God I still love Penelope even after all that.....


  1. Rookie pleading mistake.

  2. Lawyer needs to go back to circuit court.

  3. It's struck, not stricken. But I can tell you this: motions to strike definitely do not leave me panic-stricken.

  4. Sorry this is off topic a bit, but for you Gawker.com fans, the comments about the video produced by the homophobes at BYU are priceless:


  5. hey you criminal guys, is judge seitz still throwing down scripture during plea colloquies? dropping a little ezekiel on someone's ass?

  6. With all this striking, what happened to stroking?

  7. Obviously it is Friday in SFL world.

    Enjoy all.


  8. All of the stroking is being done at BYU.

  9. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/stricken.html


Post a Comment