Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)

Citation: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Parent Document: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2013-02-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8358209/provident-funding-associates-lp... ↗

Full Text

982 chars

A motion to strike is the counterpart to Rule 12(b)(6) and permits the court to strike “any insufficient defense” alleged by one of the parties. Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(f); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Gabriel, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 564, 571 (2012). A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of affirmative defenses and is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Deutsche Bank, 81 Mass.App.Ct. at 571 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To prevail on a motion to strike, the moving party must establish that the op*39posing party cannot prove the legal matters asserted in the affirmative defense, meaning, the proposed affirmative defense would fail as a matter of law. Petro Grp., Inc. v. Eskanian, 2008 Mass.App.Div. 95, *6 (2008). Like a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike is intended to screen out issues that do not warrant a trial. See O’Rourke v. Hunter, 446 Mass. 814, 820 (2006). II. Counterclaims I & II

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text