Rogler v. Fotos et al

Filing 74

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 MOTION to Strike 4 Answer to Complaint filed by Edar Y. Rogler Signed by: Judge Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 12/9/2014. (c/m 12/9/14 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

EDAR ROGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALEXANDRA M. FOTOS, et al.,
Defendants.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Civil Case No. WDQ-14-228

*

*

*

*

*

*

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending is the “Verified” Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer filed by Plaintiff Edar
Rogler (“Plaintiff”). [ECF No. 12]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 301, this
motion was referred to me to issue a Report and Recommendations. [ECF No. 50]. No hearing is
deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons that follow, I recommend
that Plaintiff’s “Verified” Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer be DENIED.
Plaintiff filed this action pro se on January 27, 2014, alleging claims of tortious
interference with employment, breach of contract, negligence in performance of safety
responsibilities, strict liability for owning and harboring a dangerous animal, and failure to warn.
[ECF No. 1]. Defendants Alexandra M. Fotos and Neil Harpe (“Defendants”) filed an answer on
March 17, 2014. [ECF No. 4]. On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Verified” Motion to Strike
Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint. [ECF No. 12]. Essentially, Plaintiff’s motion alleges that
Defendants’ electronic service of the Answer on Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5 and the Local Rules of this District, and seeks additional time to respond to the Answer.

1

This case has been referred to me for discovery and related scheduling. [ECF No. 14].
Following a lengthy stay to accommodate Plaintiff’s medical condition, I held a scheduling
conference on December 9, 2014. At that conference, Plaintiff confirmed on the record that she is
now in receipt of the Answer. Further, I ruled that any deadlines for filing motions in response to
the Answer would begin running anew from December 9, 2014. Finally, the parties confirmed on
the record the appropriate process for serving documents on Plaintiff as this case proceeds
forward. Thus, I recommend that Plaintiff’s “Verified” Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer be
DENIED AS MOOT, because any prejudice Plaintiff may have suffered as a result of allegedly
improper service has been eliminated by resetting the clock to allow her to respond to the Answer,
which is now in her possession.
For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s “Verified”
Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer.

[ECF No. 12].

Any objections to this Report and

Recommendations must be served and filed within fourteen (14) days, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule 301.5.b.

DATED: December 9, 2014

/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

2