Frederick v. Pinnacle Financial Services et al

Filing 146

ORDER. Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing and does not allege in his motions that Defendants' affirmative defenses will prejudice him in any way. As a result, Plaintiff's motions to strike are denied. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, and 133. So ordered. Denying 131 Motion to Strike; Denying 132 Motion to Strike; Denying 133 Motion to Strike. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/11/2015) (rjm)

USDC
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOC
DATE FILED:,....,,,,AllA\I~-+-~
Ezekiel Frederick,
Plaintiff,

-v-

14-CV-5460 (AJN)
ORDER

Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. et al.,
Defendants.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed motions to strike almost all of the affirmative
defenses in Defendants Capital One, Pinnacle, Tina Vincelli, and Midland's Answers. See Dkt.
Nos. 131, 132, 133. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a district court to strike "from
any pleading an insufficient defense." See Fed: R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, motions to strike
affirmative defenses are "not favored and will not be granted 'unless ... plaintiffs would succeed
despite any state of the facts which could be proved in support of the defense."' William Z.

Salcer, Panfeld, Edelman v. Envicon Equities Corp. ("Edelman"), 744 F.2d 935, 939 (2d Cir.
1984) (quoting Durham Indus., Inc. v. N River Ins. Co., 482 F. Supp. 910, 913 (S.D.N.Y.
1979)). In addition, "the movant must show that he will be prejudiced by inclusion of the
defense" in order for the court to grant a motion to strike. Connell v. City ofNew York, 230 F.
Supp. 2d 432, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing and does
not allege in his motions that Defendants' affirmative defenses will prejudice him in any way.
As a result, Plaintiff's motions to strike are denied.
This resolves Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, and 133.

1

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November _ _, 2015
New York, New York

2