This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D filed an amended complaint in October 2014, asserting five causes of action. D filed an answer in December 2014, asserting nine affirmative defenses, but no counterclaims. In September 2015, almost a year later, D sought leave to amend its answer to the amended complaint to add several additional affirmative defenses and several counterclaims. P opposed D's request and at the same time sought leave to amend its amended complaint by adding a sixth cause of action. The judge denied D's motion for leave to amend its answer to P's amended complaint, granted P's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and permitted D to file an amended answer to the second amended complaint 'subject to P's ability to move, under Rule 12(f), to strike material in D's answer that P believes exceeds the scope of permissible amendment. The judge allowed P to use a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) to raise whatever issues it would have raised in opposition to the Defendant's motion to amend its answer under Rule 15(a)(2). P filed a second amended complaint, adding, as a sixth cause of action, a claim for breach of contract. D filed an answer to the second amended complaint, adding six affirmative defenses and six counterclaims. P moved to strike all of D's six new affirmative defenses and five of its six new counterclaims. The Court granted in part and denied in part P's motion to strike. The Court denied the motion with respect to four affirmative defenses, and, pertinent to the pending appeal, struck D's sixth and seventh affirmative defenses and five counterclaims. D appealed from a judgment for P.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.