Goesel et al v. Boley International et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/7/2009:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANDREW GOESEL, et al., etc., P l ai n ti f fs , v. BOLEY INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD., et al., D e fe n da n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

09 C 4595

MEMORANDUM ORDER Boley Corporation ("Boley U.S.") has filed its Answer to the Complaint brought against it and three other corporate defendants. This brief memorandum order is issued because of a single--but almost all-pervasive--troublesome aspect of that responsive pleading. Many of the Answer's paragraphs (Answer ¶¶1-3, 6-13, 15-23, 2534, 37, 71 and 74) set out disclaimers that conform to the representation prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) as the predicate for a defendant's attaining the benefit of a deemed (not an actual) denial. But then having done so, Boley U.S.'s counsel go on

to say in each of those instances "and therefore said allegations are d e ni e d. " That is of course oxymoronic--how can a party that asserts

(presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it in accordance with Rule 11(b)? Accordingly the quoted phrase is

stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.

_ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge D a te : August 7, 2009