Mussari v. Parker et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/12/2009:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANTONIO MUSSARI, Plaintiff, v. P.O. JOE DORTHA PARKER #17669, individually, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

09 C 2745

MEMORANDUM ORDER City of Chicago ("City") has filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") brought against it and one of its police officers by Antonio Mussari. This memorandum order is

issued sua sponte because of a couple of problematic aspects of that responsive pleading. Those problems relate to the affirmative defenses ("ADs") that follow the answers to the FAC's allegations. This Court's

App'x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001) explains some basic principles in that respect, under which (for example) AD 2 is impermissible because it directly contradicts FAC ¶14.1 Various of the other ADs are at odds with the notice pleading principles that are incumbent on defendants as well as plaintiffs in the federal courts. It will not do for City's

This Court has not sought to be exhaustive in that respect, because City's counsel must return to the drawing board in any event and will be expected to engage in careful selfmonitoring in doing so.

1

counsel simply to recite items from the Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(c) laundry list without fleshing out the claimed defenses to inform Mussari's counsel and this Court of the predicate for those defenses (for example, ADs 4 and 5 must be and are stricken, albeit with leave granted to restate those ADs in appropriately fleshed-out form. City's counsel would also do

well to reexamine the ADs to make certain that each is advanced in the objective good faith required by Rule 11(b).

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: August 12, 2009

2