Sullivan v. Life Fitness, Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/2/2010:Mailed notice(srn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SEAN SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. LIFE FITNESS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No.
09 C 7787
MEMORANDUM ORDER Life Fitness, Inc. ("Life Fitness") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the FMLA action brought against it by its ex-employee Sean Sullivan ("Sullivan"). This sua
sponte memorandum order is occasioned by two problematic aspects of the ADs.1 First, AD 1 properly invokes the two-year limitations period prescribed by 29 U.S.C. §2617(c)(1). fashion: Thus, Sullivan's allegations relating to events allegedly occurring in November 2007 are time-barred. That assertion improperly conflates the issue of the actionability of earlier events under FMLA with the propriety of allegations as to such events--to the extent that such allegations may arguably bear on such issues as intent, evidence in support of the allegations may well be admissible. But it concludes in this
No effort has been made here to be exhaustive. Sullivan is of course free to address any other aspects of the responsive pleading that he deems improper.
1
Accordingly the quoted sentence is stricken. Second, as to AD 3, its first sentence's assertions are at odds with some of the allegations in Sullivan's Complaint, thus failing to conform to the concept embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and the caselaw applying it--see App'x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Life Fitness' stated denials to Sullivan's allegations in the body of the Answer suffice to put such matters at issue. Nonetheless this Court will not strike Life Fitness' belt-andsuspenders approach.
________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: March 2, 2010
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?