Zahran et al v. PNC Bank N.A. et al
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/19/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBIN ZAHRAN and KAREN ZAHRAN, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TRANSUNION CREDIT INFORMATION )
SERVICES CO./TRANS-UNION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 13 C 8804
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Because pro se plaintiffs Robin and Karen Zahran (collectively "Zahrans") originally filed
their Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, they cannot be charged with having violated
the Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a)(2) mandate that a federal court plaintiff must file "a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" (although even in the
Illinois state courts' fact-pleading regime Zahrans' 209-paragraph Complaint is over the top).
That prolix pleading, coupled with the requirement of this District Court's LR 10.1, has created a
dismayingly bulky chambers file as each of the numerous targeted defendants weighs in with its
responsive pleading.
Now Equifax Information Services LLC ("Equifax") has filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Zahrans' Complaint -- and although this Court will not waste its resources on a
paragraph-by-paragraph review of the components of that necessarily lengthy responsive
pleading, 1 this sua sponte memorandum order will instead limit itself to targeting one particularly
_________________________
1
For example, no effort will be made here to determine whether and to what extent
Equifax's ubiquitous Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimers or its less frequent denials may violate the subjective
and objective good faith requirements of Rule 11(b), or whether and to what extent Equifax's
(continued)
improper and annoying aspect of the Equifax Answer.
As already indicated, the vast bulk of Equifax's responses to Zahrans' Complaint take the
form of invocations of the Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer format to avoid having to admit or deny the
corresponding allegations of Zahrans' Complaint. But then having done so, Equifax's counsel
follows each of the those disclaimers with the language "and, therefore, denies those allegations."
It is of course totally oxymoronic for a party (or its counsel) to assert (presumably in good faith)
that the party 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 totally at odds with the pleader's obligations under
Rule 11(b) referred to in n.1, the quoted language is stricken from each of those paragraphs of the
Answer.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: February 19, 2014
_________________________
(footnote continued)
Defenses are at odds with the principles of Rule 8(c) and the caselaw applying it (in that respect,
see also App'x ΒΆ 5 to State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill.
2001).
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?