SYLVA v. Ude

E.D. Pennsylvania

SYLVA v. Ude

DecidedFebruary 3, 2022

Docket5:21-cv-04102

StatusUnknown

This text of SYLVA v. Ude (SYLVA v. Ude) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SYLVA v. Ude, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________

TIMPRE SYLVA, : Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, : : v. : No. 5:21-cv-04102 : JACKSON UDE, : Defendant and Counter-Claimant. : ____________________________________

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February 2022, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in this action, see Mot., ECF No. 29, Defendant’s response, see ECF No. 33, Plaintiff’s reply, see ECF No. 34, and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Defendant’s amended counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice.1 2. Defendant’s following amended affirmative defenses are struck: a. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; b. Lack of personal jurisdiction; and c. Improper venue. 3. Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendant’s following affirmative defenses is denied: a. fair report privilege; and b. forum non conveniens.

1 The Court dismisses Defendant’s counterclaims with prejudice for three reasons. First, because the Court already granted Defendant additional time beyond the original deadline to file his counterclaims. See ECF No. 23. Second, because Defendant has already amended his counterclaims once before. Third, because the Court dismissed Defendant’s exact same counterclaims twice before under nearly identical facts in a related case. See Wabote v. Ude, No. 5:21-CV-2214, 2021 WL 4901809 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2021). Despite having the benefit of hindsight, Defendant made the exact same counterclaims in this case that were dismissed several months prior in Wabote. He could have cured the deficiencies, if possible, but he did not. Any additional amendments would therefore be futile. See Boyd v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 583 Fed. Appx. 30, 32 (3d Cir. 2014). 1 BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________

TIMPRE SYLVA, : Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, : : v. : No. 5:21-cv-04102 : JACKSON UDE, : Defendant and Counter-Claimant. : ____________________________________

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February 2022, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s Amended Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses in this action, see Mot., ECF No. 29, Defendant’s response, see ECF No. 33, Plaintiff’s reply, see ECF No. 34, and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this date, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Defendant’s amended counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice.1 2. Defendant’s following amended affirmative defenses are struck: a. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction; b. Lack of personal jurisdiction; and c. Improper venue. 3. Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendant’s following affirmative defenses is denied: a. fair report privilege; and b. forum non conveniens.

1 The Court dismisses Defendant’s counterclaims with prejudice for three reasons. First, because the Court already granted Defendant additional time beyond the original deadline to file his counterclaims. See ECF No. 23. Second, because Defendant has already amended his counterclaims once before. Third, because the Court dismissed Defendant’s exact same counterclaims twice before under nearly identical facts in a related case. See Wabote v. Ude, No. 5:21-CV-2214, 2021 WL 4901809 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2021). Despite having the benefit of hindsight, Defendant made the exact same counterclaims in this case that were dismissed several months prior in Wabote. He could have cured the deficiencies, if possible, but he did not. Any additional amendments would therefore be futile. See Boyd v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 583 Fed. Appx. 30, 32 (3d Cir. 2014). 1 BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SYLVA v. Ude, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylva-v-ude-paed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack