Opinion
1:22-cv-00740
10-17-2022
JOSEPH D. MATEER, CHRISTOPHER BRANCHCOMB, and KATHARINE JOHNSON, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC. Defendant.
Jason R. Bristol (OH #0072989) (pro hac vice), James B. Rosenthal (OH #0062872 0062872) (pro hac vice) COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP Harris Mufson, Esq. Danielle Moss, Esq. Hayley Fritchie, Esq. Stephanie Silvano, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Ryan Stewart, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP J.R. Howell (CA #268086) (pro hac vice) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes
Jason R. Bristol (OH #0072989) (pro hac vice), James B. Rosenthal (OH #0062872 0062872) (pro hac vice) COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
Harris Mufson, Esq. Danielle Moss, Esq. Hayley Fritchie, Esq. Stephanie Silvano, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Ryan Stewart, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP J.R. Howell (CA #268086) (pro hac vice) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ENDORSED
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN OF DEFENDANT'S AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rules 12 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in support hereof, Plaintiffs Mateer, Branchcomb, Johnson, and the members of the collective action conditionally certified pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, hereby move to strike the following items from the Amended Answer [Dkt. No. 110] filed by Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc.:
The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses; and the Wherefore Clause contained therein.
Per paragraph 2.B of this Court's Individual Practices, the parties have conferred and have agreed upon the following briefing schedule:
Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Memorandum due October 14.
Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition due October 28.
Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum due November 4.
In light of the fact that motions to strike are "disfavored," Rich v. New York, 2022 WL 4241380, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2022), the Court reminds the defendant of its order of September 2, 2022 (Docket # 117). The Court does not wish to adjudicate questions of what must be pled to support an affirmative defense if in fact the defendant is able to amend its answer now to satisfy plaintiffs' challenges Accordingly, defendant is given leave to file a Second Amended Answer by the due date of its opposition brief. In such case, the parties shall consult and if any problems remain, plaintiff has leave to file a new motion to strike (following whose disposition defendant would be unlikely to be granted any further leave to amend). If defendant does not plan to file a Second Amended Answer, the briefing on the current motion will proceed.
So Ordered.