Pegaso Development Inc. v. Moriah Education Management LP
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-07787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pegaso Development v. Moriah Education, Judge Torres ordered the parties to confer before Pegaso decides whether to pursue a motion to strike.
Pegaso Development Inc. and Moriah Education Management LP and Moriah Software Management LP were required to meet and confer and report whether Pegaso intended to proceed with its request.
What happened
Pegaso Development asked for permission to file a motion to strike, and Moriah Education Management and Moriah Software Management opposed the request. A motion to strike asks the court to remove material from a pleading.
Judge Torres did not grant or deny a motion to strike. She noted that Pegaso could make a motion under Rule 12(f) after the defendants filed their answer, but reminded the parties that such motions are generally disfavored and rarely granted.
In Pegaso Development Inc. v. Moriah Education Management LP, Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties to meet and confer. She required them to file a status letter by January 8, 2020, stating whether Pegaso intended to proceed with its request to file a motion to strike.
The detailed version
- Pegaso Development Inc. v. Moriah Education Management LP · No. 1:19-cv-07787
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
On November 21, 2019, Pegaso Development Inc. filed a pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a motion to strike. On December 2, 2019, Moriah Education Management LP and Moriah Software Management LP filed a letter opposing the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it could not prevent Pegaso from making a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) after the defendants filed their answer. The court also reminded the parties that motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer. It directed them to file a status letter by January 8, 2020, stating whether Pegaso intended to proceed with its request to file a motion to strike. The order did not grant or deny a motion to strike.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.