Antolini v. Nieves
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-07645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Antolini v. Nieves, Judge Broderick denied Antolini’s motion to strike defenses, while noting the defendants agreed to strike the Twenty-Fifth Defense.
The ruling concerned Dino Antolini’s request to strike defenses from the answer of 195 10th Avenue LLC, Anna Da Silva, Barbara Nieves, Ramon Nieves, Sonny Lou Inc., and Gaspare Villa. The motion was denied, although the opinion’s footnote states that the Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense was struck after the defendants conceded it was duplicative.
What happened
In Antolini v. Nieves, Dino Antolini asked the court to remove several defenses from the defendants’ answer. The court had previously denied an earlier version of the request because it did not follow a local filing rule.
Antolini argued that some defenses were improper, duplicative, or unsupported, including a defense based on failure to state a claim and defenses concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said a failure-to-state-a-claim defense may be included in an answer and found Antolini’s other arguments too conclusory. The court also said Antolini had not shown that keeping the defenses would prejudice him.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the refiled motion to strike and directed the Clerk to close the motion. A footnote states that the defendants agreed to strike the Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense.
The detailed version
- Antolini v. Nieves · No. 1:19-cv-07645
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
Dino Antolini moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike several affirmative defenses from the answer filed by 195 10th Avenue LLC, Anna Da Silva, Barbara Nieves, Ramon Nieves, Sonny Lou Inc., and Gaspare Villa. Rule 12(f) allows a court to remove an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Antolini first filed the request by letter, but the court denied that version without prejudice because it did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1. Antolini then refiled the motion, and the defendants opposed it.
Arguments and analysis
The court explained that a motion to strike an affirmative defense generally requires the moving party to show that no possible facts or legal theory could support the defense and that including it would prejudice the moving party. The court also noted that motions to strike are generally disfavored.
Antolini argued that the defendants’ First Affirmative Defense—failure to state a claim—belonged in a motion to dismiss rather than in an answer. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a failure-to-state-a-claim defense may properly be asserted in an answer and is not subject to being stricken merely because it may be redundant.
Antolini also challenged the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Seventh Affirmative Defenses as duplicative and based on false legal theories. The court said Antolini did not identify the allegedly invalid legal theories and would not construct an argument for him from conclusory statements. A footnote states that the defendants conceded the defenses were duplicative and that the court therefore struck the Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense.
Antolini further challenged the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Twelfth, Sixteenth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses, arguing that they stated erroneous law and lacked supporting case law concerning exemptions from the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found these arguments conclusory. It also held that Antolini had not shown prejudice from including the defenses, which was an independent reason to reject his arguments.
Disposition
The court ordered that Antolini’s motion to strike, Document 21, was DENIED, and directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion. The opinion’s footnote separately states that the Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense was struck based on the defendants’ concession.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.