Federal Trade Commission v. Romero et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 21 Plaintiff's motion to strike to the extent stated in the Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 3/11/2025. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:24-cv-473-JSM-PRL

FRANK ROMERO, and PATRICIA
MARTINEZ,
Defendants.
ORDER
On January 27, 2025, Defendants filed their response to the Federal Trade
Commission’s (“FTC”) Amended Complaint. (Doc. 20). While the response appears to be an
answer as it denies and admits allegations in the Amended Complaint, it also requests
dismissal of some allegations. Accordingly, the FTC filed the instant motion seeking clarity.
(Doc. 21). Specifically, it asks the Court to construe Defendant’s response (Doc. 20) as an
answer to the FTC’s Amended Complaint and to strike Doc. 20 to the extent it moves to
dismiss portions of the Amended Complaint; or alternatively, if the Court construes any
portion of Doc. 20 as a motion to dismiss, to grant the FTC 14 days to file its opposition.
Defendants have not filed a response to the motion, and their time to do so has expired.
Accordingly, the Court will treat the FTC’s motion as unopposed.
Upon review, the Court finds that Defendants’ response (Doc. 20) is an Answer
because it proceeds allegation by allegation, providing “responses” to each allegation with
Defendants either denying or acknowledging it. This is consistent with Rule 8(b)(1)(B)’s

requirement that, “[i]n responding to a pleading a party must . . . admit or deny the allegations
asserted against it by an opposing party.”
However, Defendants’ Answer also includes a heading entitled “Request for Dismissal
with Prejudice” as to Allegation 1 (Doc. 20 at 3), and summary requests for dismissal of
Allegations 41, 42, and 68, as baseless and unfounded. (Doc. 20 at 13, 14, 19). To the extent
Defendants are moving to dismiss these allegations pursuant to Rule 12(b), such motion is
improperly combined with their Answer. See e.g., IPU Central, Inc. v. Admiral Property
Restoration Inc., No. 5:20-cv-265-MW/MJF, 2020 WL 12189178, at *2-3 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 10,
2020) (explaining that “[c]ombining a pleading with a motion is a practice that should be
avoided because it may result in a court or party overlooking a motion buried in a pleading,”
and noting that pleadings and motions “generally serve different purposes and often entail
different technical requirements.”).
Accordingly, and in the absence of any objection by Defendants, the FTC’s motion
(Doc. 20) is granted. The Court construes Doc. 20 as Defendants’ Answer; and to the extent
Defendants are moving to dismiss any allegations in the Amended Complaint, such motion
is due to be stricken.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on March 11, 2025.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-