Lansing Chiropractic Clinic, Ltd. v. Evolocity, Inc.
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/3/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LANSING CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC,
LTD., an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
EVOLOCITY, INC., a Utah corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12 C 7102
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
From time to time federal judges receive pleadings that reflect a total disregard of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") and the basic principles of notice pleading that inform
those Rules. It has been more than a decade since this Court, to spare its secretary the chore of
the repetitive typing of corrections to pleadings that clearly merit an "F" in Federal Pleading 101,
drafted and published the Appendix to its opinion in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199
F.R.D. 276 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
Just such a flawed pleading, filed on behalf of defendant Evolocity, Inc. ("Evolocity"),
has been delivered to this Court's chambers in this case. This memorandum opinion is issued sua
sponte to send counsel for Evolocity back to the drawing board.
To begin with, Answer ¶¶1, 9 and 10 impermissibly depart from the straightforward
language that Rule 8(b)(5) prescribes as the basis for any defendant's getting the benefit of a
deemed denial. That error is then compounded by following each of the defective disclaimers
with the language "and thus denies them." It is of course oxymoronic for a party to assert
(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. Because such a denial is at odds with the pleader's
obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the quoted language must be omitted from each of those
paragraphs of the Amended Answer called for by this opinion.
Next Evolocity's counsel stuffs its responsive pleading with a host of assertions that
allegations in the Complaint "state[ ] legal conclusions, not factual allegations to which no
response is required" (Answer ¶¶5-7, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 33). Even apart from
the fact (not a legal conclusion) that defense counsel has operated on a false premise as to the
lack of a need to respond as required by Rule 8(b)(1)(B) (see also App'x ¶2 to State Farm), in
many respects counsel is simply wrong in labeling what is really a factual allegation as a
purported legal conclusion.
Finally, counsel's entire set of affirmative defenses ("ADs") is unacceptable under the
teaching of Rule 8(c) and the caselaw applying that Rule (see also App'x ¶5 to State Farm). Here
in brief are the deficiencies:
1.
AD 1, which is essentially equivalent to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, is
simply wrong and may not be repeated in the Amended Answer.
2.
ADs 2 and 4 through 8 really are legal conclusions (sauce for the
goose?) that clearly do not meet the demands of notice pleading. If
Evolocity still wishes to advance any of them, they must be fleshed
out so that plaintiff's counsel and this Court can be informed as to
just what it is that Evolocity is asserting.
3.
Finally, as to AD 3, Evolocity's counsel has not explained just how
-2-
it is that Evolocity knows of plaintiff's asserted failure to mitigate
damages. If that AD is to be reasserted, it must be accompanied by
an appropriate explanation.
In sum, the entire Answer and ADs are stricken, but with leave of course granted to file
an amended -- and proper -- responsive pleading as an Amended Answer on or before
December 15, 2012. No charge is to be made to Evolocity for any time and expense involved in
that revised pleading, which is needed to correct counsel's own errors. Counsel is directed to
apprise his client to that effect by letter, with a copy of that letter to be provided to this Court
(purely for informational purposes, not for filing).
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: December 3, 2012
-3-
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?