FLYING FISH BIKES, INC. v. GIANT BICYCLE, INC., 8:13-cv-2890-T-23AEP. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150227a22
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY , District Judge . The plaintiff moves (Doc. 72) to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 84) granting the motion in part; striking the defendant's third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses; construing the defendant's seventh affirmative defense as a denial; and granting the defendant leave to amend in accord with the report and recommendation. The plaintiff objects (Doc. 98) to the report and recommendation. A de n
Summary: ORDER STEVEN D. MERRYDAY , District Judge . The plaintiff moves (Doc. 72) to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 84) granting the motion in part; striking the defendant's third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses; construing the defendant's seventh affirmative defense as a denial; and granting the defendant leave to amend in accord with the report and recommendation. The plaintiff objects (Doc. 98) to the report and recommendation. A de no..
More
ORDER
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves (Doc. 72) to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 84) granting the motion in part; striking the defendant's third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses; construing the defendant's seventh affirmative defense as a denial; and granting the defendant leave to amend in accord with the report and recommendation. The plaintiff objects (Doc. 98) to the report and recommendation. A de novo review of the portion of the report and recommendation to which the plaintiff objects reveals that the plaintiff's objection is unfounded or unpersuasive.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's objection (Doc. 98) is OVERRULED. The report and recommendation (Doc. 84) is ADOPTED. The plaintiff's motion (Doc. 72) to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses is GRANTED IN PART. The defendant's third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses are STRICKEN, and the defendant's seventh affirmative defense is construed as a denial. The plaintiff's motion (Doc. 72) to strike the defendant's twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth affirmative defenses is DENIED. No later than MARCH 6, 2015, the defendant may amend the affirmative defenses to correct only those deficiencies addressed in the report and recommendation.
Source: Leagle
