Sterling Collision Centers, Incorporated v. Kilduff

Filing 13

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STERLING COLLISION CENTERS, INC., Case No. 16-10103 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Honorable John Corbett O’Meara v. KELLI KILDUFF, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. / ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE This matter came before the court on plaintiff Sterling Collision Center’s March 8, 2016 Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Defendant’s Answer, Alleged Affirmative Defenses and Purported Counterclaim. Defendant Kelli Kilduff filed a response April 10 and 11, 2016; and Plaintiff filed a reply April 15, 2016. No oral argument was heard. There is no dispute that this is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act “(ERISA”) of 1974, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq. As such, Defendant’s answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim are all preempted by ERISA. Therefore, Plaintiff is correct that portions of Defendants pleadings should be stricken because of the preemption; and the court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to that extent. However, the court will also grant Defendant leave to file amended pleadings that reflect the parties’ mutual understanding that the issues contained in the complaint and the counterclaim are all preempted by ERISA. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s March 8, 2016 motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is further ORDERED that Defendant MAY FILE amended pleadings within 30 days of this order. s/John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge Date: July 18, 2016 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on this date, July 18, 2016, using the ECF system. s/William Barkholz Case Manager 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?