GRADY v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, 15 C 50012. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151006d84
Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge recommending that this court deny plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses [33]. The magistrate, at the September 18, 2015 status hearing, noted that the motion to strike provides no grounds to strike the affirmative defenses and, instead, just contains a blanket denial of their applicability. Despite being given the opportunity, plaintiff has
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. KAPALA , District Judge . Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge recommending that this court deny plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses [33]. The magistrate, at the September 18, 2015 status hearing, noted that the motion to strike provides no grounds to strike the affirmative defenses and, instead, just contains a blanket denial of their applicability. Despite being given the opportunity, plaintiff has n..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. KAPALA, District Judge.
Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") from the magistrate judge recommending that this court deny plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses [33]. The magistrate, at the September 18, 2015 status hearing, noted that the motion to strike provides no grounds to strike the affirmative defenses and, instead, just contains a blanket denial of their applicability. Despite being given the opportunity, plaintiff has not objected to the magistrate judge's R&R. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the motion does not provide a basis to strike defendants' affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Accordingly, there being no written objection to the magistrate judge's R&R, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985), and the court having reviewed the record and the R&R, the court accepts the R&R and denies plaintiff's motion to strike [33].
Source: Leagle
