Opinion
2:23-cv-948-JES-KCD
07-02-2024
KATHLEEN HERMAN and JEFFREY GHIAZZA, Plaintiffs, v. THE MR. COOPER GROUP INC., Defendant.
ORDER
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs Kathleen Herman and Jeffrey Ghiazza have filed a motion seeking relief from Defendant the Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.'s answer. (Doc. 88.)
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Jeffrey Ghiazza is no longer a party to this case. Plaintiffs were directed to file a “Third Amended Complaint on or before May 14, 2024,” or the case would “proceed . . . without Mr. Ghiazza.” (Doc. 79 at 2.) No Third Amended Complaint was filed. Thus, Ghiazza should be removed from all future filings.
As for the pending motion, Herman claims that Defendant already answered the complaint back in November. Thus, its latest answer (Doc. 84) is duplicative and should be stricken. Herman is simply wrong. Defendant did not previously answer the complaint-it filed a motion to dismiss. So the current answer is procedurally proper.
Herman also asks that Defendant's “affirmative defense[s] be denied.” (Doc. 88 at 1.) But she supplies no legal authority for this relief, nor any reasoning. The Court refuses to entertain such a perfunctory argument. In our adversarial system, a claimant must present her case. It is not a court's job “to conduct research to provide the proper support for [conclusory] arguments.” Eli Rsch., LLC v. Must Have Info, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-695-FTM-38CM, 2014 WL 4983710, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014).
Accordingly, Herman's motion directed at Defendant's answer (Doc. 88) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this July 2, 2024.