MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSESPLAINTIFF
, by and through her undersigned attorneys, moves to strikeDefendant, affirmative defenses for failure to satisfy the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure pleading requirements and in support thereof state:I.
In another attempt to increase fees and delay this action, Defendant asserts thirteenfrivolous affirmative defenses. Each paragraph set forth numerous conclusory affirmativedefenses without pleading any facts that form the basis for those defenses. As pled, all of the “affirmative defenses” are legally insufficient therefore without merit and must bestricken pursuant Rule 1.140(b). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b).Significantly, each and every one of Defendant’s thirteen affirmative defenses areshort on facts and long on legal conclusions. Each lacks specificity and appear to have been asserted with no factual investigation or regard to relevance. In sum, all of Defendant’s allegations are insufficiently pled, fail to properly state a legal defense, andoffer no cognizable legal claim for relief.II.
The Affirmative Defenses
Each of Defendant’s affirmative defenses falls short of satisfying Rule 1.140’s “fair notice” pleading requirement. Indeed, as pled, Defendant’s affirmative defenses provideabsolutely no indication of what the factual basis of those affirmative defenses might be,and therefore, force Plaintiff to guess and wonder. Defendant’s recitation of affirmativedefenses reads, in its entity:
For ANMPA [Defendant Alberto N. Moris PA], First AffirmativeDefense, ANMPA states that Plaintiff has failed to state a proper causeof action for which relief can be granted.