Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 25, 2024

Skanska USA Building Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-08418
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Skanska USA Building v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Judge Halpern granted Regeneron’s motion to strike specified complaint allegations and ordered amended pleadings.

Who this affects

Skanska USA Building Inc. must file a Second Amended Complaint removing the disputed allegations. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Shawn’s Lawns Inc. must each file an amended answer removing their responses to those allegations.

What happened

Skanska USA Building Inc. sued Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Shawn’s Lawns Inc. The order concerned paragraphs 195–211 and 304–305 of Skanska’s First Amended Complaint, which Regeneron sought to remove.

The court treated Regeneron’s pre-motion letter as its motion, Skanska’s response letter as its opposition, and considered the parties’ arguments at a conference held on November 25, 2024.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the motion to strike. Skanska had to file a Second Amended Complaint removing only those allegations by December 2, 2024, and Regeneron and Shawn’s Lawns each had to file amended answers removing only their responses to those allegations by December 9, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Skanska USA Building Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. · No. 7:23-cv-08418
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Nov. 25, 2024

Background

Skanska USA Building Inc. sued Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Shawn’s Lawns Inc. The order addressed Regeneron’s anticipated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to strike material from a pleading. Regeneron sought to strike paragraphs 195–211 and 304–305 of Skanska’s First Amended Complaint.

Proceedings

The court held a pre-motion conference on November 25, 2024, with counsel for all parties appearing. The court treated Regeneron’s pre-motion letter as the motion to strike and Skanska’s response letter as its opposition. It also considered the parties’ arguments in a joint letter and at the conference. The opinion does not state the court’s substantive reason for striking the disputed allegations.

Ruling and deadlines

The court granted Regeneron’s motion to strike. Skanska was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint by December 2, 2024, eliminating only the disputed allegations. Regeneron and Shawn’s Lawns were each ordered to file an amended answer by December 9, 2024, eliminating only their responses to those allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.