ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff Debus, Kazan & Westerhausen, Ltd. has filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 37. Defendants Dardanel Robinson and Howard Wheeler were ordered by the Court on March 5, 2014 to file a response to the motion by March 21, 2014. Doc. 39. Defendants did not comply. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike the amended answer and counterclaim filed on January 3, 2014 (Doc. 36) by Defendant Dardanel Robinson. Doc. 38. Defendants have not responded. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant both motions.

I. Background.

This action seeks to collect attorney's fees and costs owed to Plaintiff by Defendants. Doc. 37 at 2. The parties entered into a contract for legal services to be provided by Plaintiff to Defendant Robinson's son in a first-degree murder prosecution. Id.; Doc. 1 at 9-13. Defendants are co-guarantors of the contract. Docs. 37 at 2, 1 at 13. Defendants have refused to pay the $109,040.16 which is due and owing under the contract. Doc. 1, ¶ 15. Plaintiff commenced this action on June 12, 2013 in Maricopa County Superior Court and it was removed to this Court on June 18, 2013. Doc. 1. Defendants filed an "answer and cross-claims" on September 9, 2013, asserting several affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Doc. 23. Defendant Wheeler filed an "amended answer and counterclaim" on September 27, 2013, which is substantively the same as the September 9, 2013 filing. Doc. 28. Defendant Robinson filed an amended answer and counterclaim on January 3, 2014, after the deadline for amendments had passed, adding a new affirmative defense. Doc. 36; Doc. 38 at 1.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment.

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (holding that summary judgment is appropriate against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case"); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) ("When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.").1

Plaintiff has provided a contract, signed by Defendants, and a billing statement showing the amount due. Doc. 1 at 9-13, 15-17. Its breach of contract claim appears to be well-founded. Defendants were admonished that if they did not respond to Plaintiff's motion by March 21, 2014, the motion would be deemed ready for decision on the following day. Doc. 39. Defendants have neither responded nor produced any evidence disputing the validity of the contract or the billing statement. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion because the undisputed evidence offered in support of the motion "show[s] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.

III. Motion to Strike.

The Court's case management order entered on September 23, 2013, set the deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings at 30 days from the date of the order. Doc. 26 at 1. Defendant Robinson's January 3, 2014 Amended Complaint and Counterclaim (Doc. 36), is well past the deadline and was filed without the Court's permission. The Court will accordingly grant the motion to strike.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) and motion to strike (Doc. 38) are granted. The Clerk shall terminate this action.