FirstMerit Bank, N.A v. Keefe et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM Order Entered by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/6/2013:(gcy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN A. KEEFE, SR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 2252

MEMORANDUM ORDER
John Keefe, Sr., Betty Anne Keefe and John Keefe, Jr.
(collectively “Keefes”) have filed their Answer and Affirmative
Defense (“AD”) to the Complaint brought against them by
FirstMerit Bank, N.A. (“FirstMerit”).

This memorandum order is

issued sua sponte to address two problematic aspects of that
responsive pleading.
First, Keefes’ counsel is simply wrong in failing to respond
to Complaint ¶6 on the premise that the allegations there
“constitute a legal conclusion.”

In that respect, see App’x ¶2

to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278
(N.D. Ill. 2001).

Answer ¶6 is accordingly stricken, but with

leave granted to admit the allegation in Complaint ¶6 (clearly no
other response would be tenable) on or before June 17, 2013.
As for AD 1, it seeks to point to Illinois law as requiring
that an action based on a guaranty cannot be pursued in a
mortgage foreclosure action, so that this Court purportedly does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over John Keefe, Jr.

But

whether or not Illinois law so provides,1 this is a federal
court, with the permissible joinder of parties and claims being
defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by 28 U.S.C.
§1367(a) and (b).

Accordingly AD 1 will be stricken unless on or

before the same June 17 date defense counsel provides some
relevant authority for doing otherwise.

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

June 6, 2013

1

This memorandum order need not address that issue for the
reason next stated in the text.
2