Betternoi, LLC v. Aloizos et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-CV-60090-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
BETTERNOI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
STAVROS ALOIZOS, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED
MOTION TO STRIKE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Betternoi, LLC’s Renewed Motion to Strike
Individual Defendants’ Affirmative Defense 10. DE 172. Defendants Stravros Aloizos, Christos
Aloizos, Diego Benitez, Juan Camilo Llanos Toro, Jeffery Wahl, Justin Burke, Mandar Patil, and
Ashutosh Gajankush (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) responded to the Motion to Strike,
and Plaintiff did not file a reply. 	DE 177. 	The Honorable David S. Leibowitz, United States
District Judge, referred the Motion to Strike to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for
a report and recommendation. 	DE 174. 	The Court has carefully reviewed the briefing and the
record and is fully advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends
that the Motion to Strike [DE 172] be DENIED.
I. 	Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Strike
“A court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “The purpose of a motion to strike is to
clean up the pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
matters.” Vineland Pointe Owner, LLC v. First Bank, No. 9:24-cv-81217, 2025 WL 857780, at *1
(S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2025) (quotation marks omitted). 	“Courts have broad discretion when
considering a motion to strike; however, striking defenses from a pleading remains a drastic
remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice and only when the stricken
material has no possible relation to the controversy.” Serino v. Kee-Channer, No. 0:24-cv-61551,
2025 WL 1546947, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2025) (alterations and quotation marks omitted);
see also Vineland Pointe Owner, 2025 WL 857780, at *2 (explaining that “a motion to strike
should be granted only if the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the
controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party” (quotation marks omitted)).
II. 	Analysis of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff pled in the Third Amended Complaint that it employed Individual Defendants.
Individual Defendants had employment agreements, and those agreements prohibited them from
engaging in business that interfered with their employment, required them to protect Plaintiff’s
confidential information and trade secrets, and provided that their work product belonged to
Plaintiff. 	Individual Defendants breached their employment agreements by using Plaintiff’s
programs and other property to develop and operate a business building pornography websites.
DE 101 at 27–40.
Each Individual Defendant filed an Answer in response to the Third Amended Complaint,
and those Answers include affirmative defenses. DE 161–DE 167; DE 169. Plaintiff now seeks
to strike affirmative defense #10 in each Answer. Affirmative defense #10 in each Answer reads:
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
E.g., DE 161 at 41.
Based on attachments to the Third Amended Complaint, the compensation provided for as
part of Individual Defendants’ employment agreements included a 401k with 4% matching.
E.g., DE 101-1 at 3. 	Also based on those attachments, Illinois law governs the employment
agreements. E.g., id. at 8. “[U]nder Illinois law, ‘a material breach of a contract provision will
justify nonperformance by the other party.’” Driveline Sys., LLC v. Artic Cat, Inc., 936 F.3d 576,
579–80 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting InsureOne Indep. Ins. Agency, LLC v. Hallberg, 976 N.E.2d 1014,
1025 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)). Further, under Illinois law, failure to properly compensate an employee
can constitute a material breach of an employment contract. See Francorp, Inc. v. Siebert, 126 F.
Supp. 2d 543, 547 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (“Francorp materially breached its employment relationship
with defendants in this case by failing to pay them for a substantial period prior to their departure
from the company. It is axiomatic that an employer’s failure to compensate its employees violates
the employment relationship.”). So to recap: (1) Individual Defendants’ compensation per their
employment agreements included a 401k with matching, (2) Individual Defendants allege through
affirmative defense #10 that Plaintiff failed to deposit their 401k contributions into their 401k
accounts and instead comingled those contributions with Plaintiff’s own assets, and (3) a failure
to provide the compensation Individual Defendants were due could be a material breach of their
employment agreements that could justify their alleged nonperformance of those agreements.
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiff nevertheless contends that affirmative defense #10 must be stricken. 	Plaintiff
maintains that the affirmative defense must be stricken because it cites 29 U.S.C. § 1106 and
29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-102 as being “imported” into Individual Defendants’ employment agreements
“by operation of law,” and Plaintiff asserts that this statute and regulation actually are not imported
into the employment agreements. E.g., DE 161 at 41.
The statute and regulation implement parts of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Plaintiff cites no authority for a proposition that ERISA provisions are
not imported into employment agreements. But even if the Court accepts Plaintiff’s argument that
ERISA provisions are not imported into employment agreements, the Court does not recommend
striking affirmative defense #10. The Court does not recommend striking the affirmative defense
because, putting the citations to the statute and regulation to the side, the affirmative defense
notifies Plaintiff of Individual Defendants’ defense that Plaintiff’s alleged conduct with respect to
their 401k contributions materially violated their employment agreements and justifies their
alleged nonperformance of those agreements. Affirmative defense #10 bears a relationship to the
matters in controversy in this litigation, does not confuse the issues, and does not prejudice any
party. 	The affirmative defense should not be stricken. 	See Vineland Pointe Owner, 2025 WL
857780, at *2 (stating that “a motion to strike should be granted only if the matter sought to be
omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise
prejudice a party” (quotation marks omitted)).
III. 	Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Strike
Individual Defendants’ Affirmative Defense 10 [DE 172] be DENIED.
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation,
any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). 	The parties are hereby notified that a failure to
timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation.
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 15th day of
April, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 0:25-cv-60090-DSL Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2026 Page 5 of 5