Bollotin v. Schwartz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “mere[] denials of liability and assertions that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case” are not “avoidances or affirmative defenses within the meaning of Rule 8(c)”
• denying motion to strike intervening cause affirmative defense because “regardless of whether Plaintiff owed Defendants a duty, Plaintiffs acts [as a regulator] could still theoretically break the chain of causation and absolve Defendants of liability”
• court “should grant a motion to strike to avoid unnecessary time and money in litigating invalid, spurious issues.”
• “Even where technically appropriate and well-founded, motions to strike defenses as insufficient are often denied in absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.”
• “Even where technically appropriate and well-founded, motions to strike defenses as insufficient are often denied in absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.”
• “Even where technically appropriate and well-founded, motions to strike defenses as insufficient are often denied in absence of a 3 showing of prejudice to the moving party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).