Acosta v. Luxury Floors, Inc.
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:18-cv-01489
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Acosta v. Luxury Floors, Inc., Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part Acosta’s motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses.
R. Alexander Acosta and the United States Department of Labor, whose motion was partly granted and partly denied; Luxury Floors, Inc. and Ruben Ruiz, whose affirmative defenses were partly stricken and partly left in place.
What happened
Acosta v. Luxury Floors, Inc. concerns the Secretary of Labor’s motion to strike legal defenses raised by Luxury Floors, Inc. and Ruben Ruiz.
Because no one objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court reviewed it for clear error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court struck some defenses without prejudice, struck others with prejudice, and left several defenses in place.
The detailed version
- Acosta v. Luxury Floors, Inc. · No. 0:18-cv-01489
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Feb. 15, 2019
Background
R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, moved to strike affirmative defenses asserted by Luxury Floors, Inc. and Ruben Ruiz. An affirmative defense is a legal reason a defendant gives for avoiding or limiting liability. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a December 7, 2018 Report and Recommendation addressing the motion.
Court’s review
No timely objections were filed. The district court therefore reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Acosta’s motion to strike affirmative defenses.
The court struck the defendants’ affirmative defenses numbered 5, 7, 12 as to unclean hands, 18, and 19 without prejudice. It struck affirmative defenses numbered 12 as to laches and 14 with prejudice. The court denied the motion as to affirmative defenses numbered 3, 11, 12 as to waiver and estoppel, 13, and 17.
The order addressed the defendants’ asserted defenses; it did not decide the underlying legal claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.