Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 5, 2021

Art Media LLC v. Brant

Judge
Victor Marrero
Docket
1:19-cv-11218
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ContractCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Art Media LLC v. Brant, Judge Marrero adopted a report, granting in part and denying in part Art Media’s motion against Brant’s counterclaims and defenses.

Who this affects

Art Media LLC’s motion partially eliminated Christopher Brant’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. The counterclaims and third defense were dismissed or stricken without prejudice, the fourth defense was stricken with prejudice, and the motion was denied as to the second defense.

What happened

Art Media LLC sued Christopher Brant for breach of contract, and Brant later asserted two contract-related counterclaims and five defenses.

Art Media asked the court to dismiss Brant’s counterclaims and strike three defenses. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and neither side objected.

Judge Victor Marrero found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court dismissed Brant’s counterclaims without prejudice, struck his third defense without prejudice, struck his fourth defense with prejudice, and denied the motion as to his second defense.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Art Media LLC v. Brant · No. 1:19-cv-11218
Judge
Victor Marrero
Date
Mar. 5, 2021

Background

Art Media LLC brought this breach-of-contract action against Christopher Brant. Brant’s amended answer asserted five affirmative defenses and counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Motion and Review

Art Media moved to dismiss Brant’s counterclaims and strike three of his affirmative defenses. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Neither party filed objections.

Because there were no objections, Judge Marrero reviewed the recommendation for clear error—whether the record left the court with a firm conviction that a mistake had been made. After reviewing the record, the counterclaims, the defenses, and the parties’ submissions, the court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

Order

Judge Marrero ordered that Art Media’s motion be granted in part: Brant’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, his third affirmative defense was stricken without prejudice, and his fourth affirmative defense was stricken with prejudice. The motion was denied in part as to Brant’s second affirmative defense.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.