Opinion
21-CV-363-MMA(WVG)
11-22-2021
DAVID W. FAUNCE, Plaintiff, v. J. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS
[DOC. NO. 18.]
HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' Answer and to impose sanctions because Defendants allegedly did not timely file their Answer. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants through their counsel filed false and fraudulent documents regarding the U.S. Marshal's service. (Id. at 2.) Finally, Plaintiff claims Defendants “interdicted and secreted documents from Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and deliberately withheld a document to allow counsel to file . . . false and fraudulent documents to evade default, causing Plaintiff's motion to be denied.” (Id.) Plaintiff's frivolous motion is DENIED in its entirety.
First, Defendants' Answer was timely. Defendants timely filed their Waivers of Service, which they executed between August 23 and 25, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 10 through 13.) As a result, Defendants were then allowed 60 days from July 23, 2021 (the date the Clerk of the Court notice re service was delivered) to file their answer because they agreed to waive service. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Defendants then answered on September 21, 2021. (Doc. No. 15.) The Court has already considered this issue and denied Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment for the reasons stated above and found that Defendants' “deadline for filing their response to the complaint [was] sixty days from July 23, 2021.” (Doc. No. 14, at 2:1-4.) Defendants filed their Answer on the 60th day from July 23, 2021. It was timely.
Finally, Plaintiffs request for sanction does not merit discussion and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.