Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantmotioncivil procedureclean water act
defendantpleamotioncivil procedureclean water act

Related Cases

U.S. v. Midwest Oil Co., 206 F. 141
View Case »
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., v. UNITED STATES, et al. (NO. 01-1303) Multnomah County, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL 34133998
View Case »
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137
View Case »
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 14 F.Supp. 230
View Case »
Gillette v. United States, 345 U.S. 945, 73 S.Ct. 827, 97 L.Ed. 1370
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Kennebec Scrap Iron, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 6651302

Facts

On April 1, 2016, the United States commenced a civil action against Kennebec Scrap Iron, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the conditions of a permit issued under the Clean Water Act. The Complaint detailed various alleged failures by the Defendant, including inadequate storm water management and monitoring. In response, the Defendant filed an Answer with thirty-three affirmative defenses, prompting the Government to file a Motion to Strike twenty-three of those defenses.

The Complaint further alleges that Defendant failed to maintain a sufficient Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; failed to maintain certain methods for managing storm water; failed to conduct or properly conduct benchmark monitoring at storm water outfalls; failed to conduct or properly conduct visual monitoring at the outfalls; failed to properly conduct quarterly site evaluations; and failed to properly conduct employee training.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the affirmative defenses raised by the Defendant were legally sufficient and whether the Government's Motion to Strike should be granted in whole or in part.

The Government moves to strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses 1 (“The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”); 20 (“The violations alleged are unenforceable because they are vague”); and 21 (“The violations alleged are unenforceable because they are overbroad”).

Rule

The court may strike an insufficient defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), but such motions are disfavored. A defense is legally insufficient if it is clear that the movant would succeed despite any state of facts that could be proved in support of the defense.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), this Court 'may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense.' However, 'motions to strike defenses are disfavored.'

Analysis

The court analyzed each of the affirmative defenses in light of the legal standards for striking defenses. It found that some defenses were legally insufficient and granted the Government's Motion to Strike those, while others were deemed sufficient to warrant further factual development and were therefore denied.

In this case, as outlined by the Government in its Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion and in its Reply (Gov't Mem. at 2-3; Gov't Reply at 6), it has pleaded the essential elements of facially plausible claims under the Clean Water Act for specific violations.

Conclusion

The Court granted the Government's Motion in part, striking Affirmative Defenses 1, 10, 18, 20, 21, 26, and 30, while denying the Motion as to the remaining defenses.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Government’s Motion and strikes Affirmative Defenses 1, 10, 18, 20, 21, 26, and 30.

Who won?

The Government prevailed in part by successfully striking several of the Defendant's affirmative defenses that were deemed legally insufficient.

The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion as to Affirmative Defenses 1, 20, and 21.

You must be