UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

LISA-ATHENA S. ABU HANTASH, in her 

individual capacity and as mother and natural 

guardian of JORDAN-ANNETTEE JAZZMIN 

RICHARDSON, a minor, and JORDAN 

RICHARDSON, INC., a Virginia Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

-against- 

 

V MODEL MANAGEMENT NEW YORK, INC. 

and VNY MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

 

 Defendants.

 Docket No.: 07 Civ. 3363 (GBD) (KNF) 

 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) AND FOR AN AWARD OF 

SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11 

 

 NISSENBAUM LAW GROUP, LLC 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LISA ATHENA S. ABU HANTASH, JORDANANNETTEE JAZZMIN RICHARDSON and 

JORDAN RICHARDSON, INC. 

 140 Broadway, 46th Fl. 

 New York, New York 10005 

 (212) 871-5711 

Gary D. Nissenbaum 

 Of Counsel 

Gavin I. Handwerker, Esq. 

Neelam K. Singh, Esq. 

 On the Brief 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 13
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preliminary Statement........................................................................................................................1 

Statement of Facts..............................................................................................................................3 

POINT I 

THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE PORTIONS OF 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) ............................4 

A. The Law ...........................................................................................................................4 

B. The Law Applied to the Facts at Hand.............................................................................4 

POINT II 

THE COURT SHOULD ALSO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AS SET FORTH 

IN PARAGRAPH 151 OF THEIR ANSWER...................................................................7 

POINT III 

THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION THE DEFENDANTS 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11 .................................................................................8 

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................9 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 13
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITES

Page

Federal Cases

Beatie and Osborn, LLP v. Patriot Scientific Corp., 431 F.Supp.2d 367 (SDNY 2006) ..................4 

Connell v. City of New York, 230 F.Supp.2d 432 (SDNY 2002) ....................................................7 

FDIC v. Pelletreau & Pelletreau, 965 F. Supp. 381 (EDNY 1997) ..................................................7 

Hart v. Dresdner, 2006 WL 2356157 (SDNY 2006) ........................................................................4, 7 

Roe v. City of New York, 151 F.Supp.2d 495, 510 (SDNY 2001) ..................................................7 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) ...........................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) ...........................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) ...........................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) .....................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) .....................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Civ. P 12(f) ...........................................................................................................................4 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 13
1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 Plaintiffs submit this memorandum of law in further support of their motion to strike 

those previously identified portions of Defendants’ verified answer pursuant to Rule 12 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having read Defendants’ response, it should be patently clear 

that many, if not all of, the “answers” provided by Defendants have absolutely no bearing on this 

matter. Rather, the bevy of insults and innuendos alleged in Defendants’ answer were made 

simply to cause the Plaintiffs embarrassment and humiliation. 

 The basis of this action sounds in contract and seeks a declaration from the Court as to 

the enforceability of two modeling/management agreements. In answering the complaint, 

Defendants levied personal attacks against the Plaintiffs and their attorneys using words such as 

“frivolous”, “ridiculous” and “stupid.” Defendants even went as far as to insult Jordan 

Richardson’s mother, Lisa Hantash, by making reference to her age, weight, looks, employment 

status, family values, financial condition, financial security, financial acumen and spending 

habits. 

 Defendants then make the conclusory statement in opposition to this motion that the 

contested portions of their answer are simply relevant. They provide no explanation to the Court 

why or even how any of ad hominem attacks levied against the Plaintiffs have anything to do 

with an action to determine the enforceability of two contracts. In that regard, Defendants 

exhibit no remorse in their papers for any of their actions and make no attempt to even try and 

excuse their conduct. Instead, they actually seem to take delight in the fact that, at least up until 

now, they have been able to get away with their actions. 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 13
2

As portions of paragraphs 22, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67, 73, 75, 77, 79, 89, 98, 99, 109, 110, 

111 and 134 are clearly immaterial, impertinent and scandalous and Defendants have not made 

an adequate showing as to how these allegations have a bearing on the issues in dispute, the 

Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion. 

In addition, the Court should also strike Defendants’ Eighth Affirmative Defense 

(paragraph 151) on the grounds that (a) there is no evidence in support of the allegations that 

would be admissible; (b) the allegations have no bearing on the issues in this case; and, (c) to 

permit the allegations contained within the affirmative defense to stand would result in severe 

prejudice to the Plaintiffs. This is especially warranted in light of the fact that Defendants do not 

even address the Eighth Affirmative Defense in their opposition, thus, acknowledging that this 

defense is patently improper. 

Finally, the Court should also sanction both Defendants and their counsel pursuant to 

Rule 11 for violating Rule 8(b), (c) and (e) and Rule 11(b)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 13
3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs shall rely on the affirmation of Gavin I. Handwerker, Esq. with exhibits 

previously submitted in connection with this motion. 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 13
4

POINT I

THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f) 

A. The Law

Rule 12(f) permits a Court to strike from any pleading “any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Although the Courts are generally 

“very reluctant to determine disputed or substantial issues of law on a motion to strike”, motions 

to strike will be granted where “it is clear that the allegations in question can have no possible 

bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Hart v. Dresdner, 2006 WL 2356157, *10 

(SDNY 2006) (internal citations omitted); see Beatie and Osborn, LLP v. Patriot Scientific 

Corp., 431 F.Supp.2d 367, 398 (SDNY 2006). 

B Defendants Have Failed To Show How Any Of The Personal Attacks In 

Their Verified Answer Have Any Bearing On The Issues Forming the Basis 

of the Complaint 

The within action involves claims relating to the enforceability of two 

management/modeling agreements. See generally Plaintiffs’ verified complaint; see also

Defendants’ counterclaim. Clearly, Defendants’ personal attacks on Plaintiffs including 

allegations regarding Plaintiff Hantash’s age, weight, looks, employment status, family values, 

financial condition, financial security, financial acumen and spending habits do not relate or 

otherwise pertain to the enforceability of these agreements. 

Furthermore, Defendants’ opposition fails to show how portions of Defendants’ answer 

to paragraphs 22, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67, 73, 77, 79, 89, 98, 99, 109, 110, 111 and 134 of the 

verified complaint have any bearing whatsoever on the issues in dispute. Rather, Defendants 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 13
5

make conclusory statements, without providing an adequate basis, that these portions have a 

bearing on the case. Specifically, Defendants assert that: 

 “[i]n each instance, the answers made by defendants in denying or admitting the 

allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint in 17 of the defendants’ answers 

required that the defendants state additional fact which defendants had actual 

knowledge of the material facts in order to answer the allegations made by 

plaintiffs’ in their complaint.”[sic] 

Def. Opp. at 5-6. 

 However, the paragraphs of the complaint and the answers that followed (and which form 

the basis of the within motion) clearly do not require Defendants to lodge personal attacks on the 

Plaintiffs and their attorneys. A simple “admit” or “deny” would have sufficed. 

 In addition, Defendants have engaged in a childish game of “she did it first” as 

justification for their personal attacks against the Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants contend 

that the allegations pertain to the conduct/intent of the Plaintiff Hantash with regard to the 

spending of the infant model’s earnings and are relevant because Plaintiffs “have attacked the 

defendants’ conduct and alleged the lack of proper supervision of the enfant [sic] model.” Def. 

Opp. at 6. However, paragraphs 22, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67, 73, 77, 79, 89, 98, 99, 109, 110, 111 

and 134 do not make any allegations about Defendants’ improper supervision with regard to 

Plaintiff Jordan Richardson (which are addressed in paragraphs 23-26 of the verified complaint). 

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the fact that Plaintiffs have made allegations pertaining to 

Defendants’ improper supervision with regard to Plaintiff Jordan Richardson clearly goes to the 

reasons, among others, why Plaintiffs ultimately disaffirmed their agreements with Defendants 

and now seek a declaration from the Court declaring both agreements unenforceable. On the 

other hand, allegations pertaining to how Plaintiff Hantash manages her daughter’s finances is 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 13
6

clearly irrelevant to the within action. Plaintiffs, in seeking to declare 2 contracts unenforceable, 

are not required to prove motivation as an element to their causes of action. 

 In that regard, curiously missing from Defendants’ opposition is an affidavit from any 

person with actual knowledge of the facts forming the basis of this action. If it is Defendants’ 

position that motivation is somehow relevant, it was incumbent upon them to present that 

evidence to the Court in admissible form. Conclusory statements of an attorney do not meet that 

burden. That such an affidavit is missing speaks volumes because it goes to very heart of 

Plaintiffs’ application — that Defendants have no actual information regarding any of the claims 

they make in their answer, that the claims are made on belief rather than actual fact, that the 

claims have no bearing on whether or not a particular contract is enforceable, and that each and 

every one of the answers complained of has no legitimate purpose in a pleading. 

As Defendants have not made an adequate showing to the Court that the claims made in 

their answer have any legitimate purpose or are probative on the issues in dispute, the Court 

should grant Plaintiffs’ motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f). 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 13
7

POINT II 

THE COURT SHOULD ALSO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ EIGHTH 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 151 OF 

THEIR ANSWER 

As elaborated in Plaintiffs’ original memorandum of law, Plaintiffs have sufficiently 

demonstrated that Defendants’ Eighth Affirmative Defense (paragraph 151) should be stricken 

on the grounds that (a) there is no evidence in support of the allegations that would be 

admissible; (b) the allegations have no bearing on the issues in this case; and, (c) to permit the 

allegations contained within the affirmative defense to stand would result in severe prejudice to 

the Plaintiffs. Hart v. Dresdner, 2006 WL 2356157, *10 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) citing Roe v. City of 

New York, 151 F.Supp.2d 495, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Connell v. City of New York, 230 

F.Supp.2d 432, 438 (SDNY 2002); FDIC v. Pelletreau & Pelletreau, 965 F. Supp. 381, 389 

(E.D.N.Y. 1997). 

For whatever reason, Defendants do not even address Plaintiffs request to strike 

Defendants’ Eighth Affirmative Defense. By failing to present any evidence in opposition to 

that portion of Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court should deem Defendants’ silence as a tacit admission 

that the Eighth Affirmative Defense is improper. 

Accordingly, the Court should strike Defendants’ Eighth Affirmative Defense. 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 13
8

POINT III 

THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 

FED. R. CIV. P. 11 

In light of the fact that Defendants have not opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and 

for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ original memorandum of law, the Court should order 

sanctions against the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) for violating, inter alia, Rule 

8(b), (c) and (e) and Rule 11(b)(1) and (3). Based on their opposition, it appears as if Defendants 

believe that (a) the type of conduct exhibited in their answer, no matter how outrageous or 

extreme, is an acceptable method of pleading in this District or (b) that the Court will not take 

action against them. Whatever the reason, Defendants need to be made an example of in order 

for the rest of the bench and bar to know that such conduct is not acceptable in this District and 

that failure to abide by simple rules of pleading will be met with stiff rebuke from the Court. 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 13
9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant the relief 

requested herein in its entirety and grant such other, further and different relief as to the Court 

seems just, equitable and proper under the circumstances. 

Dated: June 20, 2007 

 

 NISSENBAUM LAW GROUP, LLC 

 /S/ GAVIN I. HANDWERKER 

 By: Gavin I. Handwerker (GIH6191) 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 140 Broadway, 46th Fl. 

 New York, New York 10005 

 (212) 871-5711 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 13
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE

GAVIN I. HANDWERKER, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of 

the State of New York affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: 

 That on June 20, 2007, I served the within MEMORANDUM OF LAW, in the following 

manner: 

 By depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official 

depository under the exclusive care and control of the United States Postal Service 

addressed to each of the persons listed below at the last known address set forth after 

each name; 

 By delivering a true copy thereof personally to each person listed below at the address 

indicated. I knew each person served to be the person mentioned and described in said 

papers as a party therein, or their attorney authorized to accept service; 

 By transmitting the papers by electronic means to the telephone/FAX number listed 

below, which number was designated by the attorney/ party for such purpose. I received 

a signal from the equipment of the attorney/party served indicating that the transmission 

was received. I also deposited a true copy of the papers, enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, 

in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the U.S. Postal Service, 

addressed to the attorney/party at the address listed below; 

 X By depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a wrapper addressed as shown below, into 

the custody of A FEDERAL EXPRESS COURIER for overnight delivery, prior to the 

latest time designated by that service for overnight delivery; 

 By delivering a true copy thereof by electronic means to the email address listed below, 

which said electronic mail address was designated by the attorney/party for such purpose. 

NAMES/ADDRESSES/FAXES OF PARTIES SERVED

Wilmer H. Grier, Esq. 

Attorneys for Defendants

V MODEL MANAGEMENT NEW YORK, INC. and 

VNY MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC 

603 Jefferson Avenue 

Brooklyn, New York 11221 

Dated: New York, New York 

 June 20, 2007 

 /S/ GAVIN I. HANDWERKER 

 GAVIN I. HANDWERKER (GIH6191) 

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 28 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 13