If a plaintiff claims damage to their property in a federal action, what could justify denying a motion to strike?

In a federal action, a motion to strike can be denied if the defendant failed to raise relevant defenses. This points to the concept that a party must present a complete case, including any defenses that could potentially negate the plaintiff's claims or lessen their liability. If the defendant does not assert pertinent defenses that are applicable to the claim of property damage, the court may consider this failure as a significant factor in allowing the plaintiff's claims to proceed unchallenged, thereby justifying a denial of the motion to strike.

The failure to present relevant defenses means the defendant is not effectively contesting the claims against them. This lack of defense can result in a situation where the plaintiff's claims remain intact, and the court may be inclined to maintain the validity of the claims, reinforcing the notion that without appropriate challenges to the damages asserted, the court should allow these claims to be considered in full.

Other choices do not provide sufficient justification for denying a motion to strike. For instance, the defendant's previous actions in other cases may not have a direct bearing on the current case unless they mirror the legal issues at hand. The absence of any trial witnesses could weaken a claim but does not directly relate to the issue of whether to strike the motion. Similarly, the compelling nature