Krausz v. Recovery Management Services, LLC

Filing 26

ORDER denying as moot 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses; granting 25 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint and Request for Jury Trial (Doc. 25-1) as a separate docket entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/6/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CASSIE M. KRAUSZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-461-FtM-38CM

RECOVERY MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint (Doc. 25)
filed on March 3, 2017.

Defendant seeks to amend its Answer and Affirmative

Defenses to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint and Request for Jury Trial (Doc.
18) (“Answer”) because Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative
Defenses (Doc. 22).

Doc. 25 at 1.

In lieu of responding to Plaintiff’s motion to strike,

Defendant seeks to remove several affirmative defenses and amend the remaining
affirmative defenses.
body of its Answer.

Id. Defendant alleges that the amendment will not affect the
Id. Plaintiff does not oppose the requested relief. Id. at 2.

Pursuant to Rule 15, the court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

“Although leave to amend shall be freely given

when justice so requires, a motion to amend may be denied on numerous grounds
such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the
amendment.”

Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the Fla. Dep’t of

Educ. ex rel. Univ. of S. Fla., 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

Here, Plaintiff does not object to the requested relief.

Furthermore, upon review of the motion and the proposed Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint and Request for Jury
Trial (Doc. 25-1), the Court finds that good cause exists, and neither ground justifying
a denial of leave to amend is present.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Amend Answer and Affirmative

Defenses to Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Amended Answer and

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint and Request for Jury
Trial (Doc. 25-1) as a separate docket entry.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 22)

is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 6th day of March, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-2-