We're blogging today because of an annoyance – another
of these nuisance motions filed by plaintiffs that should be
skirting the border of Rule 11, but unfortunately isn't. Our
particular gripe is a motion to strike a defendant's pleaded
defenses (please don't call them "affirmative"
defenses unless they really are) because they supposedly don't
meet the pleading requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (collectively
"TwIqbal"). These motions are meritless
for the simple reason that defenses, unlike pleading of affirmative
claims, are not governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) – the rule
giving rise to TwIqbal – but rather by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(c). Rule 8(a), governing "claim[s] for
relief," requires "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule
8(c), governing "affirmative defenses," requires only
that the pleader "must affirmatively state any avoidance
