Grady v. Chrysler Group LLC

Grady v. Chrysler Group LLC

Plaintiff:	Romero Grady
Defendant:	Chrysler Group LLC
Case Number:	3:2015cv50012
Filed:	January 16, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Rockford Office
County:	Winnebago
Presiding Judge:	Iain D. Johnston
Presiding Judge:	Frederick J. Kapala
Nature of Suit:	Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 5, 2015	Filing 35 ORDER : 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 ob jection 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 . Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 10/5/2015. Mailed notice (jp, )

Date Filed

Document Text

October 5, 2015

Filing 35 ORDER : 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 ob jection 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 . Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 10/5/2015. Mailed notice (jp, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grady v. Chrysler Group LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Chrysler Group LLC
Represented By:	Matthew Paul Barrette
Represented By:	Charlie J Harris, Jr
Represented By:	Julia D. Kitsmiller
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Romero Grady
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?