b"Page 14FBA/OC 11 Id. at 684. defenses, and an affirmative defense is sufficiently 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).pled if it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.); Baroness Small Estates, Inc. v. BJ's Restaurants, 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A).Inc.,11-cv-00468-JST,2011WL3438873,at*5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011) (same). 14 Hon. Amy St. Eve & Michael A. Zuckerman, The27 Enough for Everyone, Inc. v. Provo Craft & Nov-ForgottenPleading,7F ED .C TS .L.R EV .152elty,Inc.,No.SACV11-1161DOC,2012WL (2013).177576 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012). 15 Soucek & Lamons, supra note 4, at 884. 28 In-N-OutBurgersv.SmashburgerIPHolder 16 Id.LLC, et al., 8:17-cv-01474-JVS-DFM, Dkt. 142 at 417 Id. (citing St. Eve & Zuckerman,supranote 14,-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (Selna, J.) (For these at 171).reasonsandintheabsenceoffurtherdirection from the U.S. Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit, 18 Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849 F. Supp.this Court will not apply the Twombly/Iqbal plau-2d 925, 929 (N.D. Cal. 2012).sibilitystandardtoaffirmativedefenses.).This case fell outside of the temporal scope of our anal-19 See Rosen v. Masterpiece Mktg. Grp., LLC,222ysis in Court-Counting Precedent.F. Supp. 3d 793, 800 (C.D. Cal. 2016).29 Loi Nguyen v. Durham Sch. Servs., L.P., 358 F. 20 Id. at 799-800.Supp.3d1056,1057(C.D.Cal.Feb.20,2019) 21 Id.(Should the stricter plausibility requirement set forth in Twiqbal apply equally to pleading affirma-22 SeeCamretav.Greene,563U.S.692,709n.7tive defenses in an answer? The short answer is (2011) (A decision of a federal district court judgeplainly no.);see also Elettronica GmbH v. Radio is not binding precedent in either a different judi- FrequencySimulationSys.,Inc.,2017WL cial district, the same judicial district, or even up- 6888823,at*1(C.D.Cal.Aug.24,2017) on the same judge in a different case.) (quoting 18(indicatinginclinationtoapplythefairnotice J.Mooreetal.,M OORES F EDERAL P RACTICE standard before denying the motion as moot).134.02[1][d] (3d ed. 2011)).30 Harbor Breeze Corp. v. Newport Landing Sport-23 InCourt-CountingPrecedent,weexaminethefishing, Inc., 2018WL 4944224,at *1 (C.D. Cal. implications in depth of district courts looking toMar.9,2018)(holding,withoutaddressingthe other district courts for answers, and the need forTwiqbal plausibility debate, that the key to deter-uniformity, at least within each district. The focusmining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative here is narrowed to the California practitioner indefense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of an effort to provide practical information for litiga- the defense.);Mega Brands Inc., et al. v. Amloid tion strategy. Corp., 8:13-cv-00108-CJC, Dkt. 18 at 2 (same).24 Soucek & Lamons, supra note 4, at 895. We only31 779 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2015). includeddistrictswith10ormorecasesonthe32 Id. at 1019.subject in our charts.25 See supra note 22.33 Soucek & Lamons, supra note 4, at 897. 26 See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Reis, 12-cv-02212- 34 Id. at 897-98. JST, 2013 WL 12126777, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5,35 See, e.g.,Rosen v. Masterpiece Mktg. Grp., LLC, 2013)(TheNinthCircuit,however,hasnotre- 222F.Supp.3d793,801-02(C.D.Cal.2016) quired a heightened pleading standard for affirm- (citing Kohler and conducting a lengthy discussion ative defenses . . . and the Court will not requireof both sides of the debate, settling on a refusal to one here.);Pac. Dental Servs., LLC v. Homelandapply heightened standards to defendants). Ins. Co. of New York, 13-cv-00749-JST, 2013 WL 3776337,at*2(C.D.Cal.July17,2013) (Accordingly,thereisgoodreasontoconclude thatTwombly/Iqbaldonotapplytoaffirmative"