Bastos Property, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:24-cv-05424
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bastos Property v. Mt. Hawley, Bastos moved to strike defenses; Judge McMahon’s ruling is not included in the provided text.
Bastos Property, LLC and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company are the parties directly affected, but the provided text does not show any court ruling affecting them.
What happened
In Bastos Property, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Bastos Property asked the court to strike several defenses that Mt. Hawley included in its answer. The provided document is a motion filed by Bastos, not a court ruling.
Bastos argued that the defenses were legally insufficient, unsupported by facts, or too conclusory to give notice of what Bastos needed to defend against. Bastos requested that the defenses be struck and that it receive attorneys’ fees and costs.
Judge McMahon’s ruling is not included in the provided text. The document therefore does not show whether the motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- Bastos Property, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-05424
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 10, 2024
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is titled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses.” It appears to be a filing by Bastos Property, LLC, rather than an opinion or order issued by the court. The document states that Bastos filed its complaint on July 18, 2024, and that Mt. Hawley filed an answer and affirmative defenses on August 16, 2024. The motion bears a September 5, 2024 certificate of service, while the supplied metadata lists December 10, 2024 as the filing date.
Plaintiff’s arguments
Bastos moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to strike an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. Bastos challenged affirmative-defense numbers 1, 5, 12, and 16 as references to policy endorsements that lacked sufficient facts, evidence, and specificity. Bastos challenged numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 17 as bare, conclusory allegations that did not adequately explain the defenses.
Bastos asserted that the defenses failed as a matter of law and prejudiced Bastos by not providing enough information about what it needed to defend against. Bastos requested an order striking the identified defenses “with prejudice,” attorneys’ fees and costs connected with the motion, and any other appropriate relief. These are requests and arguments by Bastos, not rulings by the court.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a judicial analysis or disposition. It does not state whether Judge Colleen McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the motion, and it does not show whether any fees or costs were awarded. Accordingly, no court holding can be stated from this document.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.