Windham v. City of Fairhope et al

Filing 29

Order re: 28 Answer to Complaint filed by Anita Kostyra, Frank Kostyra. Amended Answer or Show Cause Response due by 5/24/2013. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 5/14/2013. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TINA DIANE WINDHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FAIRHOPE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 13-0025-WS-N

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte based on its review of the Answer (doc.
28) filed by defendants Frank and Anita Kostyra.
On May 10, 2013, the Kostyras, by and through counsel, filed an Answer that, in lieu of
admitting or denying each of the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, simply states a blanket
denial that each of the Kostyras “denies each and every material allegation of the Complaint
herein, as any such allegation might relate to them, separately and/or severally, and in particular
(yet not limited to), those set forth within Counts IX (9), XII (12), XVI (16), XVIII (18) and XX
(20), together with ¶’s 10, 11, 15 and 16.” (Doc. 28, ¶ 1.)
Such general denials of all allegations in a complaint are almost never appropriate under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mortensen v. Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., 2010 WL 3339492, *2 n.7 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 23, 2010) (“General denials are almost
always improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); Matter of Crawford, 2 B.R. 589,
592 (Bankr. Ill. 1980) (“A general denial is appropriate only where the pleader intends in good
faith to controvert the preceding pleading.”); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Bill’s Farm Center, Inc., 52
F.R.D. 114, 118-19 (W.D. Mo. 1970) (declaring that “[g]eneral denials or the equivalent are no
longer permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). Indeed, one prominent
commentator has opined that the use of general denials “has been sharply restricted” under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that “an answer consisting of a general denial will be
available to a party acting in good faith only in the most exceptional cases.” Wright & Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1265; see also 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, §
8.06[4] (3d ed.) (“Because of the very broad nature of a general denial, as well as the duty to
respond in good faith after reasonable inquiry, general denials are rarely appropriate responses to
multi-faceted statements within claims for relief when numerous facts are alleged together.”).
Under Rule 8(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., denials set forth in an answer “must fairly respond to
the substance of the allegation.” Id. Moreover, a general denial such as that offered by the
Kostyras is appropriate only when a party “intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a
pleading.” Rule 8(b)(3). By contrast, “[a] party that does not intend to deny all the allegations
must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those
specifically admitted.” Id. The Kostyras would appear to be endeavoring to fit their Answer
within the “specifically deny designated allegations” prong of Rule 8(b)(3); however, that
portion of the Rule is inapplicable here because (i) the Kostyras purport to be denying all
material allegations of the Complaint that relate to them, not just the listed paragraphs; and (ii)
many portions of the Complaint contain provisions that do not appear to be subject to a goodfaith denial in a manner that comports with defendants’ obligations under Rules 8 and 11. As to
the latter point, the Complaint includes allegations such as the Kostyras being “adjacent land
owner(s) and neighbor(s) of” Windham (doc. 1, ¶¶ 10-11); Windham loaned Frank Kostyra
money in June 2006, subject to a written promissory note (id., ¶ 13); one or both of the Kostyras
had filed various specific incident/offense reports or criminal complaints against Windham, and
had contacted the Fairhope Police Department about Windham on various enumerated occasions
(id., ¶ 16); Frank Kostyra called the Fairhope Police Department on the morning of January 12,
2012 (id., ¶ 24); Frank Kostyra sent an email on January 12, 2012 containing details of Tina’s
arrest that morning (id., ¶ 64); and so on.
The Court recognizes that many of the factual allegations in the lengthy Complaint do not
concern the Kostyras, and do not relate to plaintiff’s claims against the Kostyras. But the Court
is concerned that, in its current form, the Kostyras’ Answer (which denies everything and admits
nothing) does not appear to comport with the strictures of Rules 8 and 11. Of course, counsel’s
signature on the Kostyras’ Answer constitutes a certification by counsel “that to the best of the
person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances … the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence.” Rule
11(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P.

-2-

In light of the foregoing, the Court invites the Kostyras to file an Amended Answer that
fairly meets the substance of the averments of the Complaint and is otherwise consistent with
this Order. Such an Amended Answer should be filed on or before May 24, 2013. If an
Amended Answer in conformity with Rules 8 and 11 is filed prior to that deadline, then the
Kostyras need take no further action in response to this Order. However, if the Kostyras opt not
to file such an Amended Answer within that time frame, then they are ordered to show cause,
on or before May 24, 2013, why their Answer, in its current form, does not violate Rules 8(b)
and 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Show Cause Order is entered pursuant to
Rule 11(c)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P. Responses to this Show Cause Order should include, without
limitation, a description of the reasonable inquiry undertaken by the Kostyras’ counsel prior to
filing their Answer and an explanation of how, following such reasonable investigation, he could
in good faith controvert all of the allegations of the Complaint pertaining to his clients, including
without limitation those identified supra.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2013.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-