Enjaian [E-Filer] v. Schlissel et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSE R. ENJAIAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-cv-13297

v.
MARK S. SCLISSEL, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER
Pending before the court is a Motion to Strike, in part, the Defendants’ Answer, filed
by Defendants on October 14, 2014. (Dkt. # 12.) However, that same day Plaintiff
amended his complaint as of right. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1)(B). This rendered the
original Complaint—and by extension, the Answer—nullities.1 Drake v. City of Detroit, 266
F. App’x 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, in part, the Defendants’ Answer
(Dkt. # 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 30, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, October 30, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

1

The court notes, however, that there was nothing improper about Defendants’
Answer and that another motion to strike directed at a similar Answer to the Amended
Complaint would likely be futile.
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-13297.ENJAIAN.MotiontoStrike.ml.wpd