D'Aquin v. U.S. Bank National Association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THOMAS L. D’AQUIN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1343
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 	SECTION: D (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses filed
by Plaintiff Thomas L. d’Aquin.1 Defendant U.S. Bank National Association has filed
a Response.2 After careful consideration of the plaintiff’s memorandum, defendant’s
response, the record, and the applicable law, the Motion is DENIED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Thomas L. d’Aquin filed suit against U.S. Bank National Association
on June 28, 2025. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied him
access to funds which he deposited into his bank account and that an employee of
Defendant then “publicly accused Plaintiff of submitting a ‘bad check’ in the presence
of others.”3 	This statement, Plaintiff avers, caused him emotional harm.4 In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a violation of “Regulation 12 CFR Part 229” (Count 1),
“Defamation (Slander Per Se)” (Count 2), and Emotional Distress 	(Count 3).5
Defendant filed an Answer on September 12, 2025 in which it denied all allegations
1 R. Doc. 17.
2 R. Doc. 19.
3 R. Doc. 1.
4 Id.
5 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01343-WBV-EJD Document 20 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 4

2
made in the Complaint and asserted thirty affirmative defenses.6
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 2, 2025, in which he asks the Court
to strike certain affirmative defenses from the Answer for being “insufficient,
redundant, immaterial, and/or legally improper.”7 He specifically seeks to strike the
twelfth and sixteenth defense for being conclusory, the twenty-second and twenty-
seventh for being legally inapplicable, the twenty-eighth for being unsupported, and
others 	unenumerated 	for 	being 	contradictory.8 	Defendant 	responded 	that 	the
affirmative defenses are sufficiently pled and sufficient as a matter of law and that
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how he is prejudiced by the presence of the
Defendant’s affirmative defenses in the Answer.9
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the court to “strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.”10 A “motion to strike should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken
has no possible relation to the controversy.”11 ‘“Even when technically appropriate and
well-founded,’ motions to strike are not to be granted ‘in the absence of a showing of
prejudice to the moving party.’”12 “The district court possesses considerable discretion
6 R. Doc. 12.
7 R. Doc. 17.
8 R. Doc. 17-2 at p. 1.
9 R. Doc. 19 at pp. 3-4.
10 FED. R. C IV. P. 12(f).
11 Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cnty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962)
(citation modified).
12 Abene v. Jaybar, LLC, 802 F.Supp.2d 716, 723 (E.D. La. 2011) (Fallon, J.) (quoting 5C C HARLES
A LAN WRIGHT & A RTHUR MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1382 (3d. ed. 2004)).
Case 2:25-cv-01343-WBV-EJD Document 20 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 4

3
in disposing of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike.”13 	Even so, “the action of striking a
pleading should be sparingly used by the courts.”14
Affirmative 	defense 	must 	be 	pled 	“with 	enough 	specificity 	or 	factual
particularity to give the plaintiff ‘fair notice’ of the defense that is being advanced.”15
Simply naming the affirmative defenses may or may not be sufficient to satisfy that
pleading standard, depending on the nature of the case.16 In this matter, Plaintiff has
failed to assert how the presence of the affirmative defenses in Defendant’s Answer
prejudices him.
Plaintiff has not established sufficient grounds to justify the striking of the
affirmative defenses listed in the Answer. Because they are disfavored remedies,
courts typically grant motions to strike only upon a showing of prejudice to the
moving party.17 In his memorandum, Plaintiff has not established how the inclusion
of the affirmative defenses in the Defendant’s Answer will prejudice him. Indeed, he
has made no claim of prejudice. The Court is thus unable to conclude that any
prejudice would result from not striking the affirmative defenses in the Defendant’s
Answer, especially in light of the fact that this case is in its infancy as a Scheduling
Conference has not yet been held to set discovery and other deadlines.18
13 WRIGHT & MILLER, supra note 10; see United States v. Coney, 689 F.3d 365, 379 (5th Cir. 2012) (“We
review a district court’s ruling on a motion to strike for abuse of discretion.”).
14 Coney, 689 F.3d at 379 (quoting Augustus, 306 F.2d at 868) (citation modified).
15 Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 362 (5th Cir. 1999).
16 Id. (“We acknowledge that in some cases, merely pleading the name of the affirmative defense…may
be sufficient”).
17 Abene, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 723 (E.D. La. 2011); Gaudet v. Nations, No. CV 19-10356-WBV-JVM, 2022
WL 1015032, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2022) (Vitter, J.) (“The moving party must generally make a
showing of prejudice before a motion to strike is granted.”).
18 Id. at 724.
Case 2:25-cv-01343-WBV-EJD Document 20 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Strike filed by Plaintiff Thomas L.
d’Aquin is DENIED without prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 3, 2025.
______________________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01343-WBV-EJD Document 20 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 4