Multiplan, Inc. et al v. Holland et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting 93 Motion to Strike 92 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 2/5/16. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MULTIPLAN, INC., and PRIVATE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFFS/
COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
CAUSE NO. 1:14CV315-LG-RHW

STEVEN W. HOLLAND, doing business
as Physical Therapy Clinic of Gulfport

DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

ORDER GRANTING THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
THE DEFENDANT’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
BEFORE THE COURT is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike [93] the defendant
Steven W. Holland’s Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and
Counterclaims [92]. Holland has filed a response in opposition to the Motion, and
the plaintiffs have filed a reply. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the
record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion to
Strike should be granted.
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2015, Holland filed a Motion [91] seeking leave to file a second
amendment to his answer and counterclaims. The proposed amended pleading was
attached to the Motion as an exhibit. At the conclusion of the Motion, Holland
represented that the parties had conferred regarding the Motion, and the Motion
was unopposed. As a result, United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker
entered a Text Only Order granting the Motion to Amend on October 8, 2015.
On October 25, 2015, Holland filed a Second Amended Answer, Affirmative
Defenses, and Counterclaim [92] that was different from the proposed pleading

attached to the Motion to Amend as an exhibit. The plaintiffs have filed a Motion to
Strike the Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim [92].
DISCUSSION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) provides that a party may amend a pleading once as a
matter of course as long as the time limits established by the rule have not expired.
However, any subsequent amendments can only be made with the opposing party’s
written consent or with leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
In the present case, Holland had previously amended his answer and
counterclaim and the time limits established by Rule 15 had expired. As a result,
he was required to obtain either leave of court or the written consent of opposing
counsel before filing a second amended answer and counterclaim. Judge Walker
granted Holland leave to file the unopposed amended pleading attached as an
exhibit to Holland’s Motion to Amend. Holland did not have the Court or opposing
counsel’s permission to file any pleading other than the pleading attached as an
exhibit to the Motion. As a result, the Court finds that Holland’s Second Amended
Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims [92] should be stricken. He may
file the pleading [91-1] that was previously approved by Judge Walker within ten
days of this Order. Any additional amendments can only be filed after obtaining
leave of court or the written consent of the plaintiffs.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs’
Motion to Strike [93] is GRANTED. Steven W. Holland’s Second Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims [92] is hereby STRICKEN from the
-2-

record. Holland may file the proposed amended pleading [91-1] that was previously
approved by Judge Walker within ten days of this Order.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 5th day of February, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-