Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00031-GIVIS Document 29 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., :
Plaintiff,
v. C. A. N0. 07-31 - GMS
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, iz
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, :
GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER, : .
COMMISSIONER STANLEY W. TAYLOR, : TRIAL BY JURY OF
BUREAU CHIEF PAUL W. HOWARD, : TWELVE DEMANDED
MS. GINA WOLKEN, :
DR. ALI, DR. NIAZ, DR. JOHN DOE, :
DR. ANE DOE, :
Defendants. :
DEFENDANTS’ CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,
GINA WOLKEN, AND DR. NIAZ,
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE CO-DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
NOW COMES, Defendants, Correctional Medical Services (CMS), Gina Wolken, and Dr.
Niaz, and asks the Court to deny the Plaintiff s Motion to Strike Co-defendants’s Answer to
Complaint. Defendants refer to Delaware Local Rule 7.1.2 that requires any request for relief to be
by Motion and that the responsive papers shall be in the form adopted by the moving party.
Defendants have not submitted a brief in response to plaintiff s Motion as plaintiff s Motion did not
contain a brief. However, Defendants request the CO1l1`I’S guidance such that if the Court would like
any issues it identifies in the plaintiff s motion to be briefed that defendants have an opportunity to
submit abrief. Also, in making this response, Defendants do not waive any defenses and specifically
preserve all defenses including, but not limited to Statute of Limitations, Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction, Insufficient Service and Insufficient Service of Process. In support of this Motion,
DE0s646s.1

Case 1 :07-cv-00031-GIVIS Document 29 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
Defendants offer the following:
l. Counsel for the above defendants received the State Defendants’s Answer to Complaint via
the CM/ECF filing system.
2. Denied. The Court’s Order of May 7, 2007 speaks for itself;
3. Defendants submit that the plaintiff misunderstands the Court’s Order and suggests that the
Court Order was an articulation that the plaintiff must serve the defendants.
4. Defendants continuing to assert all defenses, including but not limited to Statute of
Limitations, Insufficient Service of Process, and Insufficient Process, and Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction. Also, Defendants’s counsel expects that it will be eventually determined that
Ms. Woken was employed from 2000 to 2002 with Correctional Medical Services, making
any possible claims against her barred by the statute of limitations.
5. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that defendants’ counsel state for whom
counsel will appear and answer prior to service of process.
6. Denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court deny the plaintiff’ s claim for a default
judgment, automatic summary j udgement, and declaratory or injunctive relief. If the Court identifies
any further substantive claims made by the plaintiff that have not been responded to, Defendant’s
counsel requests that the court identify the issue and permit Defendant to file an amended Response
to Motion to Strike and/or an additional Response.
DlE086465.l

Case 1:07-cv—00031-G|\/IS Document 29 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C.
By;§&»\e\,A\
Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esquire (3802)
Patrick G. Rock, Esquire (No. 4632)
913 Market Street, #800
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 658-6538
Attorneys for Answering Defendants
DATED: July 30, 2007
DEOS6465.1