From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marcus v. Titan Am.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
May 4, 2023
8:22-cv-1135-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. May. 4, 2023)

Opinion

8:22-cv-1135-WFJ-AAS

05-04-2023

MCKINLEY MARCUS, Plaintiff, v. TITAN AMERICA, LLC, and TITAN FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants.


ORDER

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Attorneys Jorge L. Costa and Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, counsel for Plaintiff McKinley Marcus, request entry of an order allowing the law firm Remer, Georges-Pierre & Hoogerwoerd, PLLC (Remer) to withdraw as counsel and to stay the matter for thirty days. (Docs. 54, 55). Defendants Titan America LLC and Titan Florida LLC (collectively, the defendants) filed a notice stating its objection to the requested stay. (Doc. 59).

Remer moves to strike the defendants' notice as inconsistent with counsel's understanding of the defendants' position as to the motions to withdraw. (Doc. 60). A motion to strike is only available when a party requests to strike from “a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (emphasis added); see also Waller v. Frost, No. 5:05-CV-221 (DF), 2005 WL 2217434, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2005).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Remer's motions to withdraw (Docs. 54, 55) are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. If the defendants object to the motions, they must file a response by May 12, 2023.

(2) Remer's motion to strike (Doc. 60) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Marcus v. Titan Am.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
May 4, 2023
8:22-cv-1135-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. May. 4, 2023)
Case details for

Marcus v. Titan Am.

Case Details

Full title:MCKINLEY MARCUS, Plaintiff, v. TITAN AMERICA, LLC, and TITAN FLORIDA, LLC…

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: May 4, 2023

Citations

8:22-cv-1135-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. May. 4, 2023)