Filed: May 17, 2019
Latest Update: May 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING BY DEFAULT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (D.E. 5), filed on May 2, 2019. Defendant's Motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim in Count II on grounds the claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim in Count I. Id. at 2. Defendant's Motion also requests that the Cou
Summary: ORDER GRANTING BY DEFAULT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE FEDERICO A. MORENO , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (D.E. 5), filed on May 2, 2019. Defendant's Motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim in Count II on grounds the claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim in Count I. Id. at 2. Defendant's Motion also requests that the Cour..
More
ORDER GRANTING BY DEFAULT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
FEDERICO A. MORENO, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike (D.E. 5), filed on May 2, 2019. Defendant's Motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim in Count II on grounds the claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim in Count I. Id. at 2. Defendant's Motion also requests that the Court strike certain pargraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Id. at 3. Specifically, the Motion asks the Court to strike: (1) paragraph 7 "to the extent it alleges that the property is Plaintiffs' `home'"; (2) paragraph 16 "to the extent it seeks fees under Fla. Stat. § 627.428"; and (3) paragraph 17 "to the extent it seeks `expert fees' and `replacement of said home.'" Id.
THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike was May 16, 2019. See Local Rule 7.1(c) ("For all motions . . . each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion."). To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike. Accordingly, it is
ADJUDGED that the Motion to Dismiss and to Strike is GRANTED BY DEFAULT pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c). Accordingly, Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice, and paragraphs 7, 16, and 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint (D.E. 1) are STRICKEN as outlined above. See Sauve v. Lamberti, 247 F.R.D. 703, 704 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (granting by default motion to dismiss and motion to strike for failure to serve an opposing memorandum of law in violation of Local Rule 7.1(c)); Pierre v. Catalina Hotel, LLC, No. 16-25300-CIV, 2017 WL 7805574, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2017) (granting by default motion to dismiss and dismissing case without prejudice for failure to serve an opposing memorandum of law in violation of Local Rule 7.1(c)). Furthermore, it is
ADJUDGED that Defendant answer Plaintiffs' Complaint no later than June 3, 2019. Because the Court grants Defendant relief precisely as requested, the Court does not find it necessary to require Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
DONE AND ORDERED.
