Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 105 Filed 10/14/25 Page 25 of 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I grant the motion to strike this defense because, like the defendants’ estoppel defenses, the answer gives no indication how the defense applies to Crypto in this case. But I grant leave to amend because the defendants may be able to properly plead this defense. Crypto’s argument that enjoining the defendants from prosecuting Crypto serves the public interest is a merits argument that is based on disputed questions of fact and law, so I do not address it in ruling on a motion to strike. F. I grant in part the motion to strike affirmative defenses nine, eleven, twelve, and thirteen and construe them as denials of Crypto’s claims rather than affirmative defenses. The defendants’ ninth affirmative defense asserts that Crypto cannot show irreparable harm. ECF No. 38 at 16. Their eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth defenses assert that Congress did not intend the CEA to preempt state gaming laws, the Nevada gaming laws do not conflict with the CEA, and there is a presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation. Id. at 16-17. Crypto argues that I should strike these defenses because they are mere denials of Crypto’s allegations, not affirmative defenses. The defendants respond that this is not a basis to strike the defenses and Crypto does not identify any prejudice from being required to respond. I agree with Crypto that these are denials, not affirmative defenses. But I do not strike them. Instead, I construe them as denials. G. I grant the motion to strike the tenth affirmative defense because, although Crypto’s conduct may bear on the balance of the equities in Crypto’s request for injunctive relief, the defense has no factual content. The defendants’ tenth affirmative defense is that Crypto failed to mitigate any alleged harm. ECF No. 38 at 16. Crypto contends this defense does not apply because Crypto is not
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs