Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 42 Filed 08/04/25 Page 21 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
enforcement action to vindicate that relief in whatever forum Defendants choose. Those costs, like any costs of compliance with Defendants’ cease-and-desist order, would be unrecoverable due to Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages. See Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly , 563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. , 565 U.S. 606 (2012) (finding irreparable harm where plaintiffs “can obtain no remedy in damages against the state because of the Eleventh Amendment”). C. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Favor an Injunction. The balance of equities likewise supports permanent injunctive relief. Defendants suffer no hardship from being enjoined from enforcing law they lack jurisdiction to enforce in the first place, and no public interest can be served by the enforcement of preempted state law. See Valle del Sol , 732 F.3d at 1029 (“[I]t is clear that it would not be equitable or in the public’s interest to allow the state . . . to violate the requirements of federal law, especially when there are no adequate remedies available.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, “preventing a violation of the Supremacy Clause serves the public interest.” United States v. California , 921 F.3d 865, 893 (9th Cir. 2019). D. Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Do Not Preclude Judgment on the Pleadings and Should Be Struck. The Court should dispense with the fifteen so-called affirmative defenses enumerated in the Answer. “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Gemini Mgmt. , 921 F.2d 241, 242–43 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court should strike or otherwise disregard each of Defendants’ enumerated defenses for purposes of this Motion because they are either not affirmative defenses, are impertinent, have been insufficiently pled, or, even if they had been sufficiently pled, are insufficient as a matter of law. Defendants’ first defense , “[t]he Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” Answer at 16, is simply an assertion that CDNA cannot prove its case on the facts alleged— not an affirmative defense. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co ., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs