Colman, Sr. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER denying 75 Motion to Strike 75 Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike 70 Notice (Other) of Defendant's Scrivener's Error to Joint Pretrial Stipulation. Re: 75 Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike 70 Notice (Other) of Defendant's Scrivener's Error to Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed by Carlos Colman, Sr.. Signed by Judge Ursula Ungaro on 3/21/2016. (jt00)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 1:15-cv-21555-UU
CARLOS J. COLEMAN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC..,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF SCRIVENER’S ERROR
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of
Scrivener’s Error, D.E. 75, filed March 21, 2016.
THE COURT has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises. On March 20, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Scrivner’s [sic] Error
to Joint Pretrial Stipulation. D.E. 70. In the Notice, Defendant argued that the Statement of
Facts Section in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Stipulation, which was filed on January 15, 2016,
mistakenly failed to include the phrase “contends that.” D.E. 75. Defendant argues that the Joint
Pretrial Stipulation should state, “The Plaintiff, Carlos J. Coleman, Sr., contends that he
sustained significant injuries when he was exiting the store and was impact by building materials
and/or a cart,” as opposed to “the Plaintiff, Carlos J. Coleman, Sr., sustained significant injuries
when he was existing the store and was impact by building materials and/or a cart.” Id. Plaintiff
moves to strike Defendant’s Notice on grounds that Defendant’s proposed revision does more
than correct a scrivener’s error and, instead, unilaterally alters a key component of the parties’
Joint Pretrial Stipulation.

The Defendant has always denied liability and damages, including the extent of the
Plaintiff’s injuries, in this case. Therefore, the notice filed by Defendant changes nothing. In
fact, the filing of the notice was entirely unnecessary. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion, D.E. 75, is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _21st_ day of March,
2016.
_______________________________
URSULA UNGARO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies provided:
counsel of record