Chesshir et al v. LaJoie Ventures, L.P. et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Strike; denying 23 Motion to Strike; denying 24 Motion to Strike; denying 25 Motion to Strike. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 20, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MICHAEL CHESSHIR; and
JENNIFER CHESSHIR
v.

PLAINTIFFS
Case No. 4:14-cv-04140

BRADLEY TAYLOR d/b/a TAYLOR &
TAYLOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC;
MOLLY TAYLOR d/b/a TAYLOR &
TAYLOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC;
JANELLE WHITE d/b/a TAYLOR &
TAYLOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC;
TAYLOR & TAYLOR DEVELOPMENT,
LLC; BRADLEY TAYLOR; MOLLY
TAYLOR; and JANELLE WHITE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Bradley Taylor’s Answer to Complaint (ECF
No. 22); Motion to Strike Janelle White’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 23); Motion to Strike
Molly Taylor’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 24); and Motion to Strike Taylor & Taylor
Development, LLC’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 25). Defendants have responded to these
Motions. (ECF No. 32). The Court finds these matters ripe for its consideration.
The Plaintiffs have divided their filings into a “Motion to Strike” and an alternative
“Response to the Answer.” The Court first notes that Plaintiffs’ Motions to Strike Defendants’
Answers are exactly the same and will consider those together. The Motions to Strike assert
arguments that have already been before the Court numerous times. See, e.g., Motion to Remand
(ECF No. 19); Motion to Strike Notice of Removal (ECF No. 20); Alternative Response to Notice
of Removal (ECF No. 20). Because the Court has already addressed these arguments, it will not
address them again now. Plaintiffs’ argument that the answers should be stricken due to Arkansas
Code Annotated § 18-44-118 will be denied, as their argument that Defendants did not comply with
filing deadlines was denied by the Court’s Order denying their Motion to Remand.

Next, Plaintiffs have included an alternative Response to Defendants’ Answers. At the end
of their response, they again ask the Court to “grant the Motion to Remand to Arkansas State Court.”
The Court has already addressed the Motion to Remand and will not do so again here. Other than
a reiteration of their arguments, the Court is confused as to what purpose the Responses to
Defendants’ Answers has served.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Bradley Taylor’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No.
22); Motion to Strike Janelle White’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 23); Motion to Strike Molly
Taylor’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 24); and Motion to Strike Taylor & Taylor Development,
LLC’s Answer to Complaint (ECF No. 25) are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2