Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mateer v. Peloton, Judge Schofield let Peloton amend its answer before deciding plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain defenses.
The order affected Peloton Interactive, Inc.’s ability to amend its answer and the plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their motion to strike; it did not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.
What happened
In Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to strike seven affirmative defenses and the concluding request for relief from Peloton’s amended answer.
The court noted that motions to strike are disfavored and gave Peloton permission to file a second amended answer by the deadline for its opposition brief. The court did not decide whether the challenged defenses should be stricken.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s docketed order said that, if Peloton amended its answer, the parties should consult about any remaining problems and the plaintiffs could file a new motion to strike. If Peloton did not amend, briefing on the existing motion would continue.
The detailed version
- Mateer v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00740
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
Joseph D. Mateer, Christopher Branchcomb, and Katharine Johnson filed a motion on behalf of themselves, members of a collective action conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and proposed classes. They asked the court to strike the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses from Peloton Interactive, Inc.’s amended answer, as well as the answer’s “Wherefore Clause.” The motion invoked Rules 12 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court’s Action
The court stated that motions to strike are disfavored. Rather than immediately decide what Peloton had to plead to support its affirmative defenses, the court gave Peloton leave—permission—to file a Second Amended Answer by the deadline for its opposition brief.
If Peloton filed a Second Amended Answer, the parties were directed to consult about any remaining problems. The plaintiffs could then file a new motion to strike, after which the court indicated that Peloton would be unlikely to receive further permission to amend. If Peloton did not plan to file a Second Amended Answer, briefing on the existing motion to strike would proceed.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s docketed order did not grant or deny the plaintiffs’ motion to strike. It granted Peloton leave to file a Second Amended Answer and set out what would happen depending on whether Peloton amended its answer. The order therefore did not resolve the adequacy of the challenged affirmative defenses or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.