Prada et al v. DCS Enterprises, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying without prejudice 15 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Answer & Affirmative Defenses, Memorandum of Law in Support and Certificate of Good Faith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/7/2017. (LS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VANESSA PRADA, KRISTY
LOCKWOOD, DEMETRIC GREEN
and JIMMY WALKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-850-FtM-99CM

DCS ENTERPRISES, INC., DAVID
STEWART and SUE STEWART,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike
Portions of Defendants’ Answer & Affirmative Defenses, Memorandum of Law in
Support and Certificate of Good Faith (Doc. 15) filed on February 10, 2017. Plaintiffs
seek to strike portions of Defendants’ Answer, arguing that that they fail to clearly
admit or deny certain allegations. Doc. 15 at 1. Plaintiffs also argue that many of
the Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses must be stricken because they either are devoid
of any facts or, alternatively, are not recognized as proper affirmative defenses in Fair
Labor Standards Act cases.

Id.

Defendants have responded, disputing that

Plaintiffs complied with Rule 3.01(g) prior to filing the instant motion. Doc. 16.
Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion filed in a civil case, with certain
enumerated exceptions not at issue here, contain a statement “stating whether
counsel agree on the resolution of the motion,” and further provides that a statement
to the effect that counsel for the moving party attempted to confer with counsel for

the opposing party but counsel was unavailable is “insufficient to satisfy the parties’
obligation to confer.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel certifies that
he conferred, in writing, with the defense counsel about the issues raised
in this Motion on January 26, 2017. The undersigned laid out, in writing,
the deficiencies as set forth herein. On February 1, 2017, defense counsel
stated she would make “some changes” to the Answer & Affirmative
Defendants, however, she never did. Moreover, the undersigned also
called the defense counsel by telephone about the issues raised in this
Motion, however, the Defendants did not respond telephonically or
otherwise amend the Answer & Affirmative Defenses, as requested.
Doc. 15 at 8. Defendants’ counsel, on the other hand, states that “Plaintiff’s counsel
gave a ‘deadline’ to respond to his request no later than Friday February 1, 2017.”
Doc. 16 at 2. When Defendants’ counsel responded by February 1, 2017 that she
would be making some changes “consistent with your request,” Plaintiffs’ counsel
requested information on what changes she was not willing to make and by what date
she would be making the changes. Id. Defendants’ counsel does not address the
telephone calls to her; however, she denies that she ever saw the instant motion or
was consulted regarding it prior to its filing. Id.
Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court will deny without prejudice the
instant motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). See M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g).
Rule 3.01(g)’s duty to confer requires a good faith conference, which means a
substantive discussion in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute without court
intervention. It does not include exchange of ultimatums or attempts to confer that
do not result in a meaningful and substantive discussion. Simply put, the Court
cannot overstate the importance of Local Rule 3.01(g) in helping avoid needless

-2-

litigation, as it fosters communication between the parties and helps resolve disputes
without court intervention.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Answer & Affirmative
Defenses, Memorandum of Law in Support and Certificate of Good Faith
(Doc. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of March, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-