United States District Court, D. Colorado
MEGAN MCFADDEN, LONNIE WHITE, and ANTONIO “A.J.” WHITE, Plaintiffs,
MEEKER HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Property Management Company, MELINDA PARKER, MICHELLE BUCKLER, EDY GEORGE, and, STACIE KINCHER, Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative Strike Affirmative Defenses. (ECF No. 104.)
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to strike affirmative defenses
1, 3-5, and 7-10 from Defendants' Amended Answer (ECF No.
102). For the reasons explained below, this motion is
12(f) permits a court to “strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense.” “An affirmative defense is
insufficient if, as a matter of law, the defense cannot
succeed under any circumstance.” FDIC v.
Isham, 782 F.Supp. 524, 530 (D. Colo. 1992).
Affirmative Defenses 1, 3, 7, and 10
do not oppose Plaintiffs' request to strike their
affirmative defenses 1, 3, 7, and 10. (ECF No. 104 at 2; ECF
No. 104-1 at 1-2.) Those defenses are therefore stricken on
this basis alone.
Affirmative Defenses 4, 5, and 9
defenses 4, 5, and 9 may be addressed together. They read as
4. Plaintiffs Lonnie and Antonio “A.J.” White
failed to disclose A.J. White's income after he was no
longer a full time student. As a result of their failure to
disclose their complete income, Plaintiffs received benefits
in whole or in part for which they were not eligible. Meeker
Housing Authority is entitled to recoupment, reimbursement or
set-off for benefits Lonnie and A.J. White wrongfully
5. Plaintiff, Megan McFadden intentionally or negligently
made false representations to Defendant Meeker Housing
Authority regarding her family's income and her marital
status. Ms. McFadden made the representations in order to be
eligible for Section 8 housing benefits. She also failed to
disclose Levi McFadden's income in violation of the terms
of her lease and the HUD requirements for eligibility for
Section 8 housing benefits. She made these representations
knowing the Meeker Housing Authority would rely on her
representations in determining her eligibility for Section 8
housing benefits. As a result of her misrepresentations, Ms.
McFadden received benefits in whole or in part for which she
was not eligible. Meeker Housing Authority is entitled to
recoupment, reimbursement or a set-off for benefits Ms.
McFadden wrongfully received.
9. Defendants are entitled to a set-off from Plaintiffs'
(ECF No. 102 at 26-27.)
Whether Defendants Should Have ...