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)

Download PDF
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?