Kochan v. Kowalski, 478 F. Supp. 3d 440

Pro se plaintiff Christopher Kochan sued alleging (1) excessive force by Town officer Cori Kowalski and County deputy William J. Hunt arising from a February 27, 2016 vehicle chase and forcible removal, and (2) § 1985 conspiracy and First Amendment retaliation against former defendants Lori Rieman, Jillian Koch, and Mary Reynolds for complaints they sent to his web-host about CatCountyCorruption.com.
On December 27, 2019 the court dismissed the claims against Rieman, Koch, and Reynolds but allowed the excessive-force claims against Kowalski and Hunt to proceed.
Kowalski and Hunt answered and asserted cross-claims against each other for contribution/indemnification and catalogued 23 and 24 affirmative defenses, respectively.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of the three non‑police defendants, and separately moved to strike all affirmative defenses and dismiss the cross‑claims of Hunt and Kowalski.
The court denied reconsideration (finding no plausible § 1985 claim or state‑action for the First Amendment retaliation theory and that proposed amendments were futile) and granted in part and denied in part the motions to strike: several defenses were stricken as implausible but most were preserved; cross‑claims were not dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion for reconsideration of dismissal of Rieman, Koch, Reynolds	Kochan: court should allow discovery; defendants acted under color of state law; proposed 2d amended complaint adds on‑duty/govt‑equipment allegations	Defs/Court: pleadings fail to allege class‑based animus (§1985) or state action; on‑duty status alone insufficient	Denied. Dismissal upheld; no plausible §1985 or state‑action allegations; proposed amendment futile
Motion to strike affirmative defenses (standard)	Strike all affirmative defenses as insufficient and improper	Defs: many defenses are plausibly pled, reserved, or amount to permissible denials; some require factual development	Court applied GEOMC plausibility standard; generally declined to strike most defenses at this stage
Adequacy of specific defenses (absolute immunity; waiver/estoppel/laches/unclean hands; failure to join; GML §50)	These defenses are conclusory and implausible and should be stricken	Defs offered thin justifications (e.g., hypothetical witness immunity) or reserved rights	Partly granted: Court struck Hunt's 4th, 19th, 22nd defenses and Kowalski's 4th, 17th, 20th, 23rd defenses as implausible; other defenses left intact
Motion to dismiss defendants' cross‑claims	Kochan sought dismissal of cross‑claims	Defs: cross‑claims for indemnification/contribution are properly plead and do not affect plaintiff's rights	Denied. Cross‑claims permitted as appropriately pled

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for reconsideration motions)
Virgin Atl. Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (grounds justifying reconsideration)
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1989) (motions for reconsideration may be treated under Rules 59(e) or 60(b))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claim to survive motion to dismiss)
Columbo v. O'Connell, 310 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2002) (analysis of "under color of state law")
GEOMC Co. v. Calmare Therapeutics Inc., 918 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2019) (standard for striking affirmative defenses: plausibility and legal sufficiency)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (limits on punitive damages)
Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002) (futility as basis to deny leave to amend)