The legal tussle between WWE and MLW continues, and this time MLW has filed a response to WWE’s latest motion in the lawsuit.
The two wrestling companies are going back and forth over a number of potential defenses put forth by WWE against MLW’s allegations that WWE violated the Sherman Act regarding anti-trust practices and more.
MLW had previously filed a motion attempting to shut down the defenses on a point-by-point basis, and WWE’s recent filing on September 8th argued that MLW’s “motion to strike never should have been filed, and should be denied.”
WWE stated the following,
“As MLW acknowledges, the purpose of motions to strike under Rule 12(f) is ‘to avoid the expenditure of time and money that will arise from litigating spurious issues.’ But MLW’s motion does the opposite. It wastes the Court’s time and resources by litigating issues that could have, and should have, been resolved between the parties.”
MLW responded to WWE’s filing, writing,
Plaintiff MLW Media LLC (“MLW”) was forced to bring this Motion1 because Defendant World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”) asserted a number of frivolous and unsupported Affirmative Defenses that “never should have been filed.”
WWE concedes as much by attaching a proposed Amended Answer that strikes the improper Affirmative Defenses that MLW challenged, and repleads those Affirmative Defenses that MLW demonstrated are inadequate.
Indeed, WWE sheepishly attempts to withdraw, without substantively acknowledging, its first, second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and twelfth Affirmative Defenses—which MLW pointed out were patently improper—by striking them in its proposed Amended Answer.
Despite these clear and glaring deficiencies, WWE baselessly accuses MLW of wasting the Court’s time and resources. WWE’s accusation is a textbook example of projection. Rather than assuming responsibility for its insufficient pleading and stipulating to amend its Answer, WWE untenably opposes a straightforward motion that it forced MLW to bring. WWE spends most of its Opposition casting aspersions and engaging in misdirection in an attempt to salvage what remains of its insufficient Affirmative Defenses.
But WWE’s Opposition is most notable for what it omits: it does not argue that its boilerplate pleading satisfies the Twombly/Iqbal standard (because, of course, it does not) and wholly ignores reference to the overwhelming authority from this Court that makes clear that “courts in this district continue to require affirmative defenses meet [that] standard.”
WWE filed a response to the Motion. WWE does not address, much less distinguish, this Court’s opinion in Goobich, but instead spends six pages of its Opposition arguing why this Court is wrong, citing to cases far and wide, including from district courts in Hawaii, Montana, and Washington, all the while ignoring overriding authority from this District.
But no amount of sophistry alters the reality that the heightened pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal requires a defendant to “include enough supporting information [for its affirmative defenses] to be plausible.”
WWE implicitly concedes that, despite having sixty (60) days to draft its Answer, its boilerplate pleading does not satisfy its legal obligation, and therefore advocates for a “more relaxed pleading standard” applied by certain courts in other districts.
Recognizing that its Affirmative Defenses are insufficient, WWE argues that the Motion should be denied because MLW has not made a showing of prejudice.
However, this Court has no such requirement. Rather, this Court routinely strikes inadequately pleaded and improper affirmative defenses without considering prejudice. And, of course, it is apparent that requiring MLW to engage in costly discovery and argument on patently improper and inadequate affirmative defenses is inherently prejudicial. Because WWE implicitly acknowledges in its proposed Amended Answer that its first, second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and twelfth Affirmative Defenses are improper, and that its remaining Affirmative Defenses are inadequately pleaded, MLW has no objection to this Court granting leave to WWE to amend its Answer, while striking with prejudice the “Reservation of Rights” section and the first, second, fifth, sixth, eighth, and twelfth Affirmative Defenses, as WWE’s proposed Amended Answer concedes all the relief MLW requested in the Motion.”
The United States District Court California Northern District (San Jose) has set a hearing on October 26th in regard to the matter.
You can keep up with all your wrestling news right here on eWrestlingNews.com. Or, you can follow us over on our Twitter and Facebook pages.
The legal battle between WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) and MLW (Major League Wrestling) continues to escalate, with MLW recently filing a response to WWE’s latest motion in the lawsuit. The two wrestling companies are engaged in a dispute over several potential defenses put forth by WWE against MLW’s allegations of Sherman Act violations regarding anti-trust practices and more.
MLW had previously filed a motion aiming to dismiss the defenses presented by WWE, but WWE argued in its September 8th filing that MLW’s “motion to strike never should have been filed, and should be denied.” WWE claimed that MLW’s motion wasted the court’s time and resources by litigating issues that could have been resolved between the parties.
In response, MLW stated that it was forced to bring the motion because WWE had asserted numerous frivolous and unsupported affirmative defenses that “never should have been filed.” MLW pointed out that WWE itself conceded this fact by attaching a proposed Amended Answer that struck the improper affirmative defenses challenged by MLW. MLW accused WWE of attempting to withdraw these defenses without substantively acknowledging their inadequacy.
MLW further criticized WWE for baselessly accusing MLW of wasting the court’s time and resources. MLW argued that WWE should have taken responsibility for its insufficient pleading and agreed to amend its Answer. Instead, WWE opposed MLW’s motion, casting aspersions and engaging in misdirection to salvage its insufficient affirmative defenses. MLW noted that WWE failed to argue that its boilerplate pleading satisfied the Twombly/Iqbal standard, which requires affirmative defenses to be plausible.
MLW also highlighted that WWE did not address or distinguish a previous court opinion in Goobich, spending six pages of its opposition arguing why the court was wrong and citing cases from other districts. However, MLW emphasized that no amount of sophistry could alter the fact that the heightened pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal necessitates enough supporting information for affirmative defenses to be plausible.
WWE argued that MLW’s motion should be denied because MLW had not shown any prejudice. However, MLW pointed out that the court routinely strikes inadequately pleaded and improper affirmative defenses without considering prejudice. MLW stated that requiring them to engage in costly discovery and argument on patently improper and inadequate affirmative defenses was inherently prejudicial. MLW expressed no objection to the court granting WWE leave to amend its Answer while striking with prejudice the “Reservation of Rights” section and the improper affirmative defenses.
The United States District Court California Northern District (San Jose) has scheduled a hearing on October 26th to address this ongoing legal dispute between WWE and MLW.
For more wrestling news, you can visit eWrestlingNews.com or follow their Twitter and Facebook pages.