Dorce v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:19-cv-02216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dorce v. City of New York, Judge Rochon granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the action, particularly the City Defendants and Transferee Defendants whose Eighth Defense was stricken, and the City Defendants whose Eleventh Defense was also stricken.
What happened
In Dorce v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to remove certain defenses from the defendants’ answers in this class-action lawsuit.
The magistrate judge recommended striking the Eighth Defense in the City Defendants’ and Transferee Defendants’ answers, while allowing them to replead it. She also recommended striking the City Defendants’ Eleventh Defense, with the possibility of renewing it for good cause if the court later certifies a class. No party objected to the recommendation.
After reviewing the recommendation for clear error, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon adopted it in full. She ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion to strike be granted in part and denied in part, and entered the specific rulings on the Eighth and Eleventh Defenses described above.
The detailed version
- Dorce v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-02216
- Rochon
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones, and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchisnon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, moved to strike certain affirmative defenses from defendants’ answers. The defendants named in the caption include the City of New York, Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Co. Inc., BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., Maria Torres-Springer, and other identified and unidentified defendants.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a Report and Recommendation on October 14, 2022. She recommended that the motion to strike be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, she recommended striking the Eighth Defense in both the City Defendants’ Answer and the Transferee Defendants’ Answer, with leave to replead. She also recommended striking the Eleventh Defense in the City Defendants’ Answer without prejudice to renewal on a showing of good cause if a class is certified in the action.
Review and ruling
The parties had fourteen days to object to the Report and Recommendation, but no objections were filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Judge Rochon reviewed the uncontested recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, she adopted Judge Cave’s recommendation in its entirety.
The court therefore ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants’ Eighth Defense was stricken with leave to replead. The City Defendants’ Eleventh Defense was stricken without prejudice to renewal on a showing of good cause if a class is certified. The order addressed the affirmative defenses and did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.