1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

COACH, INC. et al, 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-13372 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DESIGN DEPOT CENTER, LLC et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWER (ECF #12), VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF #13), 

DEEMING NON-RESPONDED TO ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT ADMITTED, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

REQUEST WITH CLERK OF THE COURT FOR DEFAULT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT DESIGN DEPOT CENTER, LLC 

 On August 29, 2014, Plaintiffs Coach Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. 

(collectively, “Coach”) filed a multi-count Complaint against Defendants Design 

Depot Center, LLC (“Design Depot”), and Frank Bazzi (“Bazzi”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”). (See the “Complaint,” ECF #1.) On December 15, 2014, Bazzi 

purported to file an Answer to the Complaint. (See the “Answer,” ECF #11.) The 

Answer, which appeared to be filed solely on Bazzi’s behalf, was a copy of the 

Complaint on which Bazzi had handwritten the word “deny” next to paragraphs 75, 

76, and 77. (See id.) The Answer did not respond to any of the other paragraphs 

of the Complaint. (See id.) Moreover, the Answer did not indicate, in any way, 

that it was filed on behalf of Defendant Design Depot. 

2:14-cv-13372-MFL-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 03/02/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 86
2 

 On January 15, 2015, Coach filed a “Motion to Strike Defendants Frank 

Bazzi and Design Depot Center, LLC’s Answer.” (See the “Motion to Strike,” 

ECF #12.) Defendants did not respond. On February 2, 2015, the Court entered 

an “Order to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Deem Admitted the 

Paragraphs of the Complaint and/or Strike the Answer.” (See the “Show Cause 

Order,” ECF #13.) In the Show Cause Order, the Court required Defendants to 

“show cause, in writing, no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 16, 2015, why the 

Court should not deem admitted the paragraphs of the Complaint to which there 

has been no response filed and/or why the Court should not strike the Answer from 

the record for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b).” (Id. at 

2, Pg. ID 84.) The Court also “strongly advise[d] Defendants to retain counsel and 

for counsel to file an appearance with the Court as soon as possible.” (Id.) 

 Defendants have not filed any response to the Show Cause Order, and no 

counsel has filed an appearance on their behalf. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8(b)(6) states that “[a]n allegation – other than one relating to the amount of 

damages – is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not 

denied.” Here, a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is required, and 

Bazzi has not denied any allegation except for paragraphs 75, 76, 77 of the 

Complaint. Therefore, the Court will deem admitted all other allegations in the 

Complaint to which Bazzi has not tendered a response, except for those relating to 

2:14-cv-13372-MFL-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 03/02/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 87
3 

the amount of damages. The Court enters this relief in lieu of striking Bazzi’s 

Answer, and it therefore denies the Motion to Strike 

 In addition, as described above, the Answer does not indicate that it was 

filed on behalf of Defendant Design Depot. On October 16, 2014, Design Depot 

executed a “Waiver of the Service of Summons” form. (See ECF #9.)1

 Design 

Depot therefore had until December 15, 2014, to answer or otherwise respond to 

the Complaint. It has done neither. It has also not responded to the Show Cause 

Order. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) the Clerk of 

the Court shall enter a default against Design Depot. Plaintiffs are directed to file a 

request for default with the Clerk of the Court. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike 

(ECF #12) is DENIED, the Order to Show Cause (ECF #13) is VACATED, 

Defendant Bazzi is deemed to have ADMITTED all allegations of the Complaint 

other than paragraphs 74, 75, and 76 and any allegations related to the amount of 

damages, and Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a request for default against Design 

Depot which the Clerk of the Court shall enter. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 2, 2015 

                                                            

1

 On this form, Design Depot’s representative wrote that the entity ceased to exist 

“prior to filing of suit” and that “[a]cceptance of summons does not renew entity.” 

(Id.) 

2:14-cv-13372-MFL-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 03/02/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 88
4 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 2, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-13372-MFL-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 03/02/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 89