Doscher v. HireRight Solutions, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 23 Motion to Strike; denying 25 Motion for Default.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

6 CHRISTIAN DOSCHER,
Plaintiff,

7
v.

8

9 HIRERIGHT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

CASE NO. C12-5491 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND
MOTION FOR DEFAULT

Defendant.

10
11
12

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Christian Doscher’s (“Doscher”)

13 motion to strike (Dkt. 23) and motion for default (Dkt. 25). The Court has considered the
14 pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the
15 file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated herein.
16

On June 18, 2012, Doscher filed a complaint against Defendant Hireright

17 Solutions, Inc. (“Hireright”) for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
18 1681, et seq. Dkt. 3.
19

On July 19, 2012, Hireright filed a motion for extension of time to answer the

20 complaint. Dkt. 12. On July 27, 2012, Hireright answered (Dkt. 17) and filed a reply to
21 its motion for an extension stating that the motion was now moot (Dkt. 19).
22

ORDER - 1

1

On August 16, 2012, Doscher filed a motion to strike the answer. Dkt. 23. On

2 August 17, 2012, Hireright responded arguing that Doscher improperly noted his motion.
3 Dkt. 24. A few hours later, Doscher filed a motion for default. Dkt. 25. Later that day,
4 the Clerk properly noted both of Doscher’s motions. On August 23, 2012, Hireright
5 responded to the motion for default. Dkt. 28. On August 24, 2012, Doscher replied.
6 Dkt. 29. On August 27, 2012, Hireright responded to the motion to strike. Dkt. 30. On
7 August 30, 2012, Doscher replied. Dkt. 32.
8

In this case, both of Doscher’s motions are based on the argument that Hireright

9 did not timely file an answer. See Dkts. 23 & 25. Hireright contends that it properly
10 requested an extension of time, answered before the Court could consider the request for
11 an extension, and, therefore, timely answered the complaint. The Court agrees.
12 Doscher’s motions are without merit and fail to recognize the liberality afforded parties at
13 this procedural posture, especially if requests for extensions are made. Therefore, the
14 Court DENIES Doscher’s motion to strike and motion for entry of default.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 6th day of September, 2012.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2