Oglesby v. Lesan et al

Filing 96

ORDER - that for the reasons stated in the court's prior order, (Filing No. 41 ), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the answer of Amy Lesan and the answer and counterclaim of Chad Hein, (Filing No. 80 ), is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT OGLESBY,
Plaintiff,

4:16CV3189

vs.
ORDER
AMY LESAN, and CHAD HEIN,
Defendants.
Plaintiff has filed another motion to strike the answer of Amy Lesan and the
answer and counterclaim of Chad Hein. (Filing No. 80). Lesan’s answer to the
complaint and her answer to the amended complaint are, in all relevant respects,
identical, (Filing Nos. 11 & 73); Hein’s answer to the complaint and counterclaim,
and his answer to the amended complaint and counterclaim are virtually
identical, (Filing Nos. 22 & 68); and Plaintiff’s pending motion to strike (Filing No.
80) repeats the arguments raised in his prior motion to strike (Filing No. 28). As
such, the court’s order denying Plaintiff’s prior motion to strike (Filing No. 41),
addresses all the arguments in Plaintiff’s pending motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that for the reasons stated in the court’s prior order,
(Filing No. 41), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the answer of Amy Lesan and the
answer and counterclaim of Chad Hein, (Filing No. 80), is denied.

August 23, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge