IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ROBERT HOLLAND )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:13-cv-00491

)

CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the “Cherberus Defendants’

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice to The Court of Chrysler

Ignition Switch Recall and Rico Case Statement,” filed by

Defendants, Cerberus Capital Management, LP, Robert Nardelli, and

Stephen Feinberg (“Cerberus Defendants”), on August 1, 2014 (DE

#79). For the reasons stated below, the motion (DE #79) is GRANTED

in PART and DENIED in PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to the Notice

of Recall and the Clerk is ORDERED to STRIKE the “Notice to the

Court of Chrysler Ignition Switch Recall” (DE #77). The Motion is

DENIED as to the “Rico Case Statement” (DE #78), and that shall

remain on the docket and given whatever weight the Court deems

appropriate. 

On July 31, 2014, pro se Plaintiff, Robert Holland, filed a

notice to the Court of Chrysler Ignition Switch Recall (DE #77) and

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 88 filed 09/15/14 page 1 of 3
RICO Case Statement (DE #78). The notice (DE #77) purports to

relate to a recall notice issued by Chrysler concerning 2005-2007

Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2006-2007 Jeep Commander vehicles. 

However, the complaint in this case alleges that Plaintiff

purchased a “Chrysler 300 vehicle,” which he also refers to as a

“2006 Chrysler 300.” (DE #1, ¶¶ 52, 55, 59, 61-62, 73-74, 77, 79,

81, 86, 93, 102, 106, 109-11.) Neither the complaint nor any other

pleadings refer to a 2005-2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee or 2006-2007

Jeep Commander. Thus, the recall notice (DE #77) is unrelated to

Plaintiff’s allegations, immaterial, and is STRICKEN.

Regarding the Rico Case Statement (DE #78), Plaintiff states

it is “intended as a Response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by all

the Defendants in this case.” (DE #78, p. 1.) There have been 4

separate motions to dismiss filed in this case (DE ##28, 57, 69,

70). Plaintiff previously filed responses to the motions to

dismiss filed by the Cerberus Defendants and the Bosak Defendants

in this case (DE ##58, 67), and therefore this Court will not

consider this document in ruling on the Bosak Defendants and

Cerberus Defendants’ motions because the Rico Case Statement simply

reiterates Plaintiff’s arguments in his already filed responses to

the Cerberus Defendants and Bosak Defendants’ motions to dismiss

and is thus redundant, and not allowable under Local Rule 7-1. 

However, Kimberly Johnson and TD Auto Finance, LLC, Successor in

interest to Chrysler Financial LLC, filed motions to dismiss on

2

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 88 filed 09/15/14 page 2 of 3
July 24, 2014 (DE ##69, 70), and treated the Rico Case Statement as

a response by Plaintiff to their motions to dismiss (DE #81), thus

the Court will not strike this document from the docket, but will

give it the weight this Court considers due in ruling upon the

Kimberly Johnson and TD Auto Finance, LLC’s motions to dismiss. 

DATED: September 15, 2014 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

 United States District Court

3

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 88 filed 09/15/14 page 3 of 3