The defendant applies for an order striking out part of the claim of her former fiance, the. He is suing her for return of an engagement ring, but she says that his claim is rooted in an anachronistic law that discriminates against women. The plaintiff, d"andrea and the defendant schmidt entered into a verbal contract of marriage. The plaintiff states that he delivered to the defendant an engagement ring, and the defendant promised to marry him. The defendant breached the contract by terminating the relationship and refusing to follow through with marriage to the plaintiff. He demanded the return of the engagement ring from the defendant and she refused. The plaintiff claims against the defendant the return of the engagement ring. Ms. schmidt takes the position that the common law cause of action of breach of promise of marriage remains the foundation of those parts of the claim relating to the engagement ring, even after the amendment.