Striking Affirmative Defenses in Government Litigation

In government cases, affirmative defenses are reasons why the government shouldn’t be able to take action against someone. For example, if a government employee gives wrong information to a person’s lawyer, that might not be enough to help the person in a legal case. It can be hard to use certain affirmative defenses in government cases, and the court might not like it if you try. It’s important to be careful when pleading defenses in a government case to avoid getting in trouble with the court. If someone is being sued in court, they can use affirmative defenses to show that the person suing them doesn’t have a legal right to do so. These defenses include things like fraud, payment, or statute of limitations. If these defenses aren’t stated properly, they can be thrown out by the court. To be valid, an affirmative defense has to admit the basic claim made by the other side, but raise a new reason that the claim isn’t valid. If the defense just denies the claim without giving a new reason, it’s not a valid affirmative defense. To use the defense of estoppel against a government agency, you have to show that the government did something really bad, like being dishonest or fraudulent. Just making a mistake isn’t enough. In a specific case, a company wasn’t allowed to use estoppel as a defense because the government employee made a simple mistake and it didn’t cause big financial harm to the company. In some cases, estoppel may be more leniently applied in permit and zoning matters. MIED tried to buy a nursing home, but AHCA refused to give them more money for Medicaid because they said MIED wasn’t a separate company from the original owner. MIED thought they were told they could get the money, so they sued AHCA. The court said that you can’t sue the government for giving you the wrong information, and you can’t use the excuse of being tricked by the government to sue them either. The Florida Department of Revenue said a yacht dealer owed taxes on boat sales because he didn’t have the right paperwork at the time. The dealer later got the paperwork and got a tax refund. The dealer said a tax department worker told him he could still get a tax exemption, even though that wasn’t true. The court said the tax department can make the dealer pay the taxes. The standards are tough when the defense strategy is to accuse the government or prosecutor of wrongdoing. The defense of “unclean hands” says that someone who asks for fairness must have acted fairly themselves. The government gets deference in taking legal action to protect the public. It’s hard to prove the government is acting in bad faith or with unclean hands, unless it’s really serious and violates the constitution. You can’t just make a vague accusation and then look for evidence later. In a case against Phillip Morris, the court said the government didn’t have unclean hands for things like not warning about the dangers of smoking. The defense of “in pari delicto” says the government is equally at fault for illegal conduct. The court said this defense doesn’t work against a government agency acting in the public interest. In the Phillip Morris case, the defendants didn’t accuse the government of lying or committing fraud. If you have a problem with a government agency, usually you have to go through an administrative process before you can go to court. In this case, a company didn’t finish the administrative process before going to court, so the court said they couldn’t do that. The company didn’t have a good reason for skipping the administrative process, so they couldn’t go to court yet. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is similar to exhaustion of administrative remedies. It says that if an issue is better handled by an administrative agency, the court should wait for the agency to decide it first. This is different from exhaustion of remedies, which is a defense to challenging an administrative action too soon. In both cases, the party wanting to skip the administrative process has to show that the errors are really bad and that there’s no other way to fix them. In a court case called Flo-Sun, the court said that the party didn’t do a good job of showing this. In defending against consumer protection claims, it’s important to consider the authority of government agencies and whether federal laws may apply. Simply trying to comply with industry standards or the law is not always a good enough defense. And arguing that the government waited too long to bring a claim against you also may not be a valid defense. When the government brings a lawsuit in the public interest, it’s hard for the defendant to argue that they waited too long to sue (laches) or that they gave up their right to sue (waiver). These arguments only work if the government did something really bad or wrong. And the defendant has to give specific reasons why they think the government did something wrong, not just say it without proof. So, in general, it’s tough for a defendant to use these arguments against the government in court. This text discusses various court cases and laws in Florida related to consumer protection and government actions. It talks about how the government can enforce laws against unfair and deceptive practices, and how courts have ruled on different cases involving government agencies and private companies. It also discusses the concept of laches, which is a legal doctrine that can be used to prevent someone from bringing a claim if they waited too long to do so. Stephen V. Iglesias is a lawyer who works for the government in the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. He specializes in cases involving healthcare fraud, government false claims, and consumer protection.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/striking-affirmative-defenses-in-government-litigation/