Ross v. Teleperformance USA Inc et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Defendant's Answer. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 1/27/2014. (rms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KEESYA D. ROSS,
Plaintiff,

:

TELEPERFORMANCE USA,
INC., et al.,

Case No. 3:13cv00038

:

vs.

:

District Judge Timothy S. Black
Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

:
:

Defendants.
:

ORDER
This case is presently before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Keesya D. Ross’s
Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Defendant’s Answer (Doc. #64), and the record
as a whole. Plaintiff requests additional time to respond to Defendant’s Answer “due to .
. . suffering [an] economic crisis and [being] under a lot of distress . . . .” (Doc. #64,
PageID# 706).
Defenses asserted in an answer, even affirmative defenses, do not warrant a
response. Crosky v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS *8 (S.D. Ohio
2010) (citing Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir. 1995)). Even without a
response, the opposing party is nonetheless considered to have denied the validity of such
defenses. Id. A reply to an answer is only permitted if the court orders one. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 7(a)(7). The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant’s Answer, nor does it deem

one is necessary.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Defendant’s
Answer lacks merit. In addition, any such reply that is filed despite this Order will be
stricken by the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Defendant’s Answer
(Doc. #64) is DENIED.

January 27, 2014
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

2