Synovus Bank v. Hurtak et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint & 13 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 8/2/11. (nll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv69
SYNOVUS BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMIL HURTAK and PATRICIA
HURTAK
Defendants.
___________________________________ )

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

In their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants asserted Counterclaims
and a Third Party Complaint. Plaintiff then moved to strike the Answer and Third
Party Complaint [# 11] and moved to dismiss the Counterclaims [# 13]. Within
twenty-one days of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants filed an Amended
Answer, which they were allowed to do as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a).

The Amended Answer, however, supercedes the original Answer,

Counterclaims, and Third Party Complaint. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot
the Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims [# 13] and Motion to Strike Answer to
Complaint [# 11].

The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk to docket the Answer to

Answer [# 16] as the Amended Answer to Complaint.

Signed: August 2, 2011