Reimer v. AT&T Mobility, LLC et al
Filing
27
ORDER denying 25 Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer and Statement of Defenses; denying 26 Correction to Defendant's Name. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 1/27/2025. (MKH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
HILDA REIMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:24-cv-1883-WWB-LHP
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, EMILIO
CASELLAS, STACY GARCIA,
LAKESHA CHALK, KATHY
KRAMER and JILL PLAZA,
Defendants
ORDER
Before the Court are a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer and Statement
of Defenses (Doc. No. 25) and a Correction to Defendant’s Name (Doc. No. 26), filed
by Plaintiff Hilda Reimer, who appears pro se. Upon review, both motions are due
to be denied for failure to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a)
and 3.01(g). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse her from compliance with all
applicable Local Rules. Moreover, the Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 25) provides no
legally viable basis to strike Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC’s answer. And to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks to change the name of a Defendant (Doc. No. 26), she must
do so by amending the complaint, which must also be done in accordance with
applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer and
Statement of Defenses (Doc. No. 25) and Correction to Defendant’s Name (Doc. No.
26), are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 27, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?