O'Bryan v. Postrack Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/17/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) POSTRACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) DONALD HEIDRICH, MARK AUBRY, ) WILLIAM WASHBURN and STEVEN ) GONZALO, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) ) POSTRACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) ) Counter-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHELE F. O'BRYAN and DOUGLAS ) SPITZ, ) ) Counter and ) Third-Party Defendants. ) MICHELE F. O'BRYAN, Case No. 12 C 5305 MEMORANDUM ORDER Michele O'Bryan ("O'Bryan") has filed her Answer plus an affirmative defense to the Counterclaims brought against her in this action. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address one problematic aspect of that responsive pleading. In each of Answer ΒΆΒΆ3, 13 and 22 O'Bryan's counsel has coupled a denial with a disjunctive disclaimer under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) as to certain allegations of the Counterclaims. Although federal practice does permit some internally inconsistent pleading under appropriate circumstances, what has been attempted here is not one of them. Accordingly each of those hybrid assertions is stricken. O'Bryan is granted until December 27, 2012 to choose which of those two inconsistent alternatives should be asserted in the three paragraphs referred to above, in compliance with the subjective and objective good faith demanded by Rule 11(b). __________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: December 17, 2012 -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?