F.B.N. Shipping Solutions, Inc. v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/15/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
F.B.N. SHIPPING SOLUTIONS, INC.,)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP,
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No.

11 C 2932

MEMORANDUM ORDER
PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC”) has just filed its
Answer and Affirmative Defenses (“ADs”) to Count III of the
Complaint brought against it by F.B.N. Shipping Solutions, Inc.
(“FBN”).

This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address a

problematic aspect of that responsive pleading.
Many (too many) of the paragraphs of PNC’s Answer (Answer
¶¶5-8, 10, 12 and 15 (the latter in all but one subparagraph))
begin in this fashion:
PNC refers to the contents of the documents which are
the best evidence of their contents and denies the
allegations of paragraph -- to the extent they
mischaracterize the cited documents.
That is totally unacceptable, for it leaves the reader to guess
what PNC and its counsel believe to be “mischaracterizations.”
That subverts the federal concept of notice pleading that applies
to defendants and plaintiffs alike.

Accordingly all of those

paragraphs of the Answer are stricken, but with leave granted to

replead in proper fashion on or before August 26, 2011.1
Finally, this Court expresses no view either way as to the
appropriateness and viability of the ADs that follow PNC’s
Answer.

If FBN perceives any deficiencies there, it would be its

burden to raise them by motion (note that Rule 7(a) does not
allow ADs to be answered).

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

August 15, 2011

1

In that respect, it is also improper for PNC to have
denied FBN’s allegations outright because of the latter’s failure
to attach “Checks” to the Complaint. It would seem that at most
PNC could seek to invoke the disclaimer provisions of Fed. R.
Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5), and even that possibility must be
considered carefully as to FBN’s various allegations in order not
to flout the directives in Rule 8(b)(1) through (4).
2