Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Nootbaar v. Alderwoods Oklahoma Inc.
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
August 5, 2019
MARTHA K. NOOTBAAR, Plaintiff,
ALDERWOODS OKLAHOMA, INC., d/b/a RESTHAVEN FUNERAL HOME, Defendant.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative
Defenses [Doc. No. 11]. Defendants have responded [Doc. No.
16] and Plaintiff has replied [Doc. No. 19]. The matter is
fully briefed and at issue.
brought the present action pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,
and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla. Stat. tit.
25, §§ 1101-1901. Plaintiff alleges she was
discriminated against and wrongfully terminated because of
her disability. She moves to strike Defendant's
Affirmative Defenses Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 as legally
insufficient pursuant to Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which state:
2. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by
regulation and/or statute.
3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by
the following doctrines: estoppel (legal and equitable),
illegality, fraud, and unclean hands.
6. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrine of
7. Plaintiff's claims may be barred, in whole or in part,
by the applicable statute of limitations.
10. Any claim for punitive damages is barred because of the
provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Constitution
of the United States as set out more specifically below:
a. Any claim for punitive damages in this case would amount
to a denial of substantive due process and procedural due
process in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, because damages
might be imposed based upon a burden of proof which does not
rise to the level of clear, cogent or convincing evidence.
b. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages violates
Defendants' rights to access to the courts guaranteed by
the Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, since the threat of an award of unlimited
punitive damages chills Defendant's exercise of rights to
free access to the courts and violates Article II, Section
II-6 of the Oklahoma Constitution requiring that all courts
shall be open.
c. Any claim for punitive damages violates the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution in that the standard for
determining the requisite mental state of the defendant or
imposition of punitive damages is void for vagueness. There
are no objective guidelines on which the finder of fact may
base its award, and the tests or standards for which punitive
damages are awarded differ from state to state such that a
specific act or omission of a given defendant may or may not
result in the imposition of punitive damages, and may result
in different amounts of punitive damages, depending upon the
state in which the suit is filed, thereby resulting in
disparate treatment of similarly situated defendants because
of economic advantage or disadvantage and, thus deny
Defendant due process and equal protection of the law.
d. Any award of punitive damages in this case would be
excessive and disproportionate to the award of compensatory
damages thus violating principles of due process and equal
protection of the laws.
e. Any award of punitive damages in this case would
constitute an excessive fine in violation of Article II,
Buy This Entire Record For