389 at 32. 24 . See Docket No. 403 at 6-7. 25 . Docket No. 389 at 32. 26 . Barnes, 718 F.Supp.2d at 1172. 27 . See Otey v. CrowdFlower, Inc., Case No. 3:12— 05524-JST, 2013 WL 5734146, at *5 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) ("The Court concludes that this affirmative defense does not meet Iqbal's plausibility standard, because it does not identify which claims would be barred by the statutes of limitations mentioned in the defense”). 28 . Perez v. Gordon & Wong Law Grp., P.C., Case No. 5:11-cv-03323-LHK, 2012 WL 1029425, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 26, 2012). 29 . Cf. Ear v. Empire Collection Authorities, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-1695-SC, 2012 WL 3249514, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 2012); see also loe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Davis, Case No. 4:11-cv-6166-CW, 2012 WL 4803923, at *6 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 9, 2012) (<HOLDING>). 30 . See Docket No. 389 at 32 (citing Madrid
holding that complaint need not anticipate statute of limitations which is an affirmative defense holding that the statute of limitations in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the trial court holding that exhaustion is an affirmative defense where the face of the complaint and exhibits thereto do not establish a failure to exhaust holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense