Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 13, 2024

Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, P.C.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:22-cv-01778
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Legal Recovery Associates v. Brenes Law Group, Judge Ramos granted Legal Recovery’s motion to strike specified defenses and allegations from Defendants’ pleadings.

Who this affects

Legal Recovery Associates LLC obtained the requested striking of specified defenses and allegations. Brenes Law Group, P.C., and Troy A. Brenes were affected because those defenses and allegations were removed from their pleadings.

What happened

Legal Recovery Associates LLC sued Brenes Law Group, P.C., and Troy A. Brenes. After Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim, Legal Recovery asked the court to remove certain affirmative defenses and factual allegations. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request, and no party objected.

The district court reviewed the recommendation and found no error. It adopted the recommendation, which identified the first, sixth, and ninth affirmative defenses and factual allegations in paragraphs 48–51 and 74–75 for removal from Defendants’ answer and counterclaim. The recommendation also addressed the first and sixth affirmative defenses in the original answer filed in an earlier related case.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Legal Recovery’s motion to strike. The specified defenses and allegations were ordered stricken from the pleadings, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-01778
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 13, 2024

Background

Legal Recovery Associates LLC filed the action in New York state court on January 28, 2022. Brenes Law Group, P.C., and Troy A. Brenes removed it to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 3, 2022. On August 18, 2023, Legal Recovery moved to strike certain affirmative defenses and allegations in Defendants’ answer and counterclaim.

Magistrate Judge Moses issued a Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2024. The recommendation advised granting the motion and striking the first, sixth, and ninth affirmative defenses, along with the factual allegations in paragraphs 48–51 and 74–75, from Defendants’ answer. It also recommended striking the first and sixth affirmative defenses from the original answer filed by Defendants in an earlier related case. The parties had fourteen days to object, but no objections were filed.

Court’s Review

Under federal law, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. When no timely objection is made, the district court may adopt the recommendation so long as the record does not show clear error. Judge Ramos reviewed Magistrate Judge Moses’s recommendation and found no error, “clear or otherwise.”

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted Legal Recovery’s motion to strike. The first, sixth, and ninth affirmative defenses and the specified factual allegations were ordered stricken from Defendants’ answer and counterclaim. The first and sixth affirmative defenses were also ordered stricken from the original answer filed in the earlier related case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

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.