Berger-Royals v. Dart et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/13/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY BERGER-ROYALS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS J. DART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 4678

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Sheriff Thomas Dart and Sheriff’s Lieutenant Kelly Baker
have filed their Answer, including affirmative defenses (“ADs”),
to the Complaint brought against them and two “John Doe” officers
by Mary Berger-Royals (“Berger-Royals”).

This memorandum order

is issued sua sponte because some aspects of that responsive
pleading are clearly problematic.
To begin with, Answer ¶7 is garbled so as to read in a
meaningless fashion (obviously an inadvertent error).

That

paragraph is stricken, but with leave granted to file an amended
answer to Complaint ¶7 on or before September 20, 2011 to cure
the problem.
Next, as is too often encountered in pleadings authored by
counsel in the State’s Attorney’s Office, the asserted ADs fail
to conform to the standards established by Fed. R. Civ. P.
(“Rule”) 8(c) and the caselaw applying that Rule (and see App’x
¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276,
279 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

Here are the problems that this Court has

noted:1
1.

AD 1 is inconsistent with the principle that such

affirmative defenses must accept a plaintiff’s allegations
as truthful, while explaining why a defendant may
nonetheless be free from liability.

That AD is accordingly

stricken.
2.

AD 2 is a nonfocused statement as to the effect of

one portion of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act.

Once again,

with the allegations of the Complaint being accepted as true
(in this instance that specifically includes Complaint ¶40
in the Complaint’s one state-law claim), the AD is at odds
with that concept and is therefore stricken as well.

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

September 13, 2011

1

Both with respect to the Answer and the ADs, BergerRoyals’ counsel may consider that there are other problems with
the present responsive pleading. This memorandum order is of
course without prejudice to counsel’s right to advance any other
contentions on behalf of their client.
2