Norwood v. Woodbridge Pulaski Limited Partnership

Filing 11

ORDER granting 9 Defendant's Motion to Strike 8 Plaintiff's Response to Answer. Plaintiff's Response is stricken from the record. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 4/5/2010. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MARILYN MCCOY NORWOOD V. CASE NO. 4:10CV00020 JMM PLAINTIFF

WOODBRIDGE PULASKI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OWNER OF KANIS POINTE TOWNHOMES ORDE R

DEFENDANT

Plaintiff filed her pro se complaint on January 14, 2010 alleging that Defendant is the owner of Kanis Pointe Townhomes and that Defendant has violated the ADA. Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint on February 10, 2010. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Response to Answer to Complaint. Pending is Defendant's motion to strike the Response to Answer to Complaint. (Docket # 9). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for the filing of a Response to an Answer, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 Accordingly, Defendant's motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff's response will be stricken from the record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2010. _____________________________ James M. Moody United States District Judge

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) recognizes a reply to an answer only if ordered by the court. In this case, the Court did not order the Plaintiff to file a reply to the answer.

1