Lopez v. Parker et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/29/2009:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DANIEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

09 C 4539

MEMORANDUM ORDER City of Chicago ("City") has filed its Answer to the Complaint brought by Daniel Lopez ("Lopez") against City and one of its police officers. This memorandum order is issued sua

sponte because of some problematic aspects of that responsive pleading. Federal pleading is not a guessing game. Fed. R. Civ. P.

("Rule") 8(b)(1) spells out the rules that every responsive pleader must follow in addressing its adversary's allegations. That being true, there is no warrant for a defendant such as City to set out particularized responses to a plaintiff's allegations and then to conclude by invoking a Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer as to "any remaining allegations" by the plaintiff (see, e.g., Answer Count I ¶¶1 and 2 and Count III ¶18) or by "den[ying] any remaining allegations contained in paragraph -inconsistent with the foregoing" (see Answer Count I ¶¶3, 4, 11 and 12). Just how is the reader--Lopez's counsel or this Court--

supposed to divine what City's counsel may view as coming within

those hedged exceptions? Accordingly those offending paragraphs of the Answer are stricken, but with leave of course granted to file proper curative responses on or before November 13, 2009. No charge is

to be made to City by its outside counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors. City's counsel

are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).1

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: October 29, 2009

This memorandum order has deliberately eschewed any questions as to the affirmative defenses ("ADs") advanced by City--on that subject, see App'x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). If Lopez's counsel finds fault with any of those ADs, that subject should be brought on by motion in the regular course. 2

1