New Union Textra Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. Emmanuelle Couture LLC
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:25-cv-03039
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In New Union Textra v. Emmanuelle Couture, Judge Gorenstein denied without prejudice a motion to strike defenses because plaintiff skipped the required pre-motion conference.
New Union Textra’s motion was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ challenged affirmative defenses were not decided and remained unresolved.
What happened
New Union Textra Import & Export Co., Ltd. sued Emmanuelle Couture LLC and Ruri Corp. The plaintiff asked the court to remove five affirmative defenses from the defendants’ answer, including personal jurisdiction, limitations, waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, and a reservation of the right to amend.
The plaintiff argued that the defenses were unsupported, legally improper, or likely to cause unnecessary discovery and litigation. The filing specifically invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits a court to remove an insufficient or improper defense from a pleading.
Judge Gabriel Gorenstein did not decide whether any defense was legally sufficient. He denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff had not first requested the pre-motion conference required by the court’s individual rules.
The detailed version
- New Union Textra Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. Emmanuelle Couture LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03039
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- June 23, 2025
Background
New Union Textra Import & Export Co., Ltd. sued Emmanuelle Couture LLC and Ruri Corp. The opinion text identifies claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The defendants filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses.
Motion
New Union Textra moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike the defendants’ second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth affirmative defenses. The challenged defenses concerned personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, statutes of limitations, estoppel, waiver, laches, unclean hands, and the defendants’ reservation of a right to amend their answer.
The plaintiff argued that the defenses were conclusory, lacked factual support, were legally unavailable, or improperly sought to preserve a unilateral right to amend. It also argued that the defenses could cause unnecessary discovery, motion practice, and trial preparation.
Ruling
The court did not address the plaintiff’s arguments about whether the defenses should be stricken. Instead, the court held that the motion was procedurally improper because the court’s individual rules required the plaintiff to request a pre-motion conference before filing a motion to strike.
Judge Gabriel Gorenstein therefore denied the motion without prejudice. The text does not state any ruling on the validity of the challenged affirmative defenses.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.