Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Prinzo

Filing 21

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Strike Answer (document 9); adopting Report and Recommendations 19 . Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/12/2015 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
VS.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-73(DCB)(MTP)

PHILLIP PRINZO

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the plaintiff Ronaldo
Designer Jewelry, Inc.’s Motion to Strike (docket entry 16), and on
the Report and Recommendation (docket entry 19) of Magistrate Judge
Michael T. Parker.

Having carefully considered the motion and the

report and recommendation, to which no responses have been filed by
the defendant, the Court finds as follows:
On October 15, 2014, the defendant Phillip Prinzo filed a
letter with the Court, which the Court liberally construed as an
answer to the complaint.

See Answer (docket entry 9).

Magistrate

Judge Parker found that the defendant, in his correspondence, did
not admit or deny the allegations in each numbered paragraph of the
complaint, and that the defendant might not have included all of
the defenses upon which he relied in opposition to the complaint.
On November 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Motion for More
Definite Statement (docket entry 12).

On December 4, 2014, the

Court granted the motion for more definite statement and ordered
the Defendant to file an amended answer on or before January 5,
2015.

(Docket entry 13).

The plaintiff did not file an amended answer.

On January 27,

2015, the plaintiff filed a motion (docket entry 16) to strike the
defendant’s Answer based on the defendant’s failure to comply with
the

Court’s

Order.

plaintiff’s Motion.

The

defendant

did

not

respond

to

the

On March 23, 2015, the Court entered an Order

to Show Cause (docket entry 18), directing the defendant to file a
written statement on or before April 7, 2015, setting forth why he
failed to comply with the Court’s December 4, 2014 Order.

The

Court also ordered the defendant to file an amended answer on or
before April 7, 2015.

The Court warned the defendant that his

failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause could result in his
Answer being stricken, entry of a default judgment against him, or
the imposition of other appropriate sanctions.

The defendant has

not responded to the Order to Show Cause.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e), “[i]f the court orders a more
definite statement and the order is not obeyed ... within the time
the court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any
other appropriate order.”

In addition, this Court possesses the

inherent power to control its docket and the parties before it.
Smith v. Legg, 24 F3d 650, 654 (5th Cir. 1994).

The inherent power

of the Court emanates from the “‘control necessarily vested in
courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.’”

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501

U.S. 32, 43 (1991)(quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

2

630-31 (1962)).
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Parker that the record
in this case demonstrates that the defendant has not complied with
the orders of the Court, and that he has apparently abandoned the
defense of this action.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report

and Recommendation, grants the plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and
strikes the defendant’s Answer.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(docket entry 19) of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker is ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff Ronaldo Designer Jewelry,
Inc.’s Motion to Strike (docket entry 16) is GRANTED, and the
defendant’s Answer (docket entry 9) is hereby STRICKEN.
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of June, 2015.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3