Peck v. Midland Funding et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 17 Motion to Strike 16 Response (NOT to motion). Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/27/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
TO ANSWER TO AMENDED
MIDLAND FUNDING, LCC and
JOHNSON MARK, LLC
Case No. 2:11-CV-611 TS
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to
Answer to Amended Complaint. 1 While the Court may order a reply to an answer under rule
7(a)(7), 2 it has not done so in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s filings are not
permitted pleadings. 3 Plaintiff is free to re-file any of the exhibits filed with her Response as
exhibits to another memorandum or motion.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
Docket No. 17.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7).
Although Defendants have only requested that the Response at Docket No. 16 be
stricken, the Court will strike the Response at Docket No. 10 on the same grounds.
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to Answer to
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED.
DATED March 27, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?