FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
v.
ROMERO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court addressed a procedural defect in defendants' response to the FTC's amended complaint. The court determined that defendants' filing constituted an answer under Rule 8(b) but improperly combined motions to dismiss within that answer, which the court struck as improper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court construed defendants' response as an answer to the amended complaint because it proceeded allegation-by-allegation with admissions and denials consistent with Rule 8(b)(1)(B). To the extent defendants sought to move for dismissal of specific allegations, such motion was improperly combined with the answer and was stricken.
[1] A document that admits and denies allegations in an amended complaint constitutes an answer.
[2] A party responding to a pleading must admit or deny the allegations asserted against it.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In responding to a pleading a party must . . . admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.”
The court cited Rule 8(b)(1)(B) to establish the proper standard for responding to pleadings, finding defendants' response satisfied this requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 27, 2025, defendants Frank Romero and Patricia Martinez filed a response to the FTC's Amended Complaint that admitted and denied specific a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 12(B) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 27, 2025, Defendants filed their response to the Federal Trade Commission's (“FTC”) Amended Complaint. (Doc. 20). While the response appears to be an answer as it denies and admits allegations in the Amended Complaint, it also requests dismissal of some allegations. Accordingly, the FTC filed the instant motion seeking clarity. (Doc. 21). Specifically, it asks the Court to construe Defendant's response (Doc. 20) as an answer to the FTC's Amended Complaint and to strike Doc. 20 to the extent it moves to dismiss portions of the Amended Complaint; or alternatively, if the Court construes any portion of Doc. 20 as a motion to dismiss, to grant the FTC 14 days to file its opposition. Defendants have not filed a response to the motion, and their time to do so has expired. Accordingly, the Court will treat the FTC's motion as unopposed.
Upon review, the Court finds that Defendants' response (Doc. 20) is an Answer because it proceeds allegation by allegation, providing “responses” to each allegation with Defendants either denying or acknowledging it. This is consistent with Rule 8(b)(1)(B)'s
requirement that, “[i]n responding to a pleading a party must . . . admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party."
However, Defendants' Answer also includes a heading entitled “Request for Dismissal with Prejudice" as to Allegation 1 (Doc. 20 at 3), and summary requests for dismissal of Allegations 41, 42, and 68, as baseless and unfounded. (Doc. 20 at 13, 14, 19). To the extent Defendants are moving to dismiss these allegations pursuant to Rule 12(b), such motion is improperly combined with their Answer. See e.g., IPU Central, Inc. v. Admiral Property Restoration Inc., No. 5:20-cv-265-MW/MJF, 2020 WL 12189178, at *2-3 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2020) (explaining that "[c]ombining a pleading with a motion is a practice that should be avoided because it may result in a court or party overlooking a motion buried in a pleading," and noting that pleadings and motions “generally serve different purposes and often entail different technical requirements.").
Accordingly, and in the absence of any objection by Defendants, the FTC's motion (Doc. 20) is granted. The Court construes Doc. 20 as Defendants' Answer; and to the extent Defendants are moving to dismiss any allegations in the Amended Complaint, such motion is due to be stricken.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on March 11, 2025.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties