Dotson v. Tri-State Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

Filing 13

ENTER MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/31/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SCH-NEA DOTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRI-STATE NURSING &
REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 1422

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Tri-State Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. ("Tri-State") has filed its Answer to the
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") brought against it by its ex-employee Sch-Nea Dotson
("Dotson"). This sua sponte memorandum order addresses a couple of problematic aspects of
that responsive pleading, although no view is expressed here as to the substantive aspects of the
FAC and the Answer. 1
First, it is difficult to see any good-faith basis for this response by Tri-State to Dotson's
straightforward venue allegation in FAC ¶ 3:
Defendant admits that if this court had jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, venue is
proper in this court.
Just what is meant by the "if" in that sentence? Whether Dotson is right or wrong on the merits
in bringing this Title VII action, nothing is even whispered at in Tri-State's Answer to identify
any jurisdictional problem with its institution. Hence Answer ¶ 3 is stricken.
1

That said, however, Tri-State's flat-out denial of the FAC ¶ 12 allegation that Dotson
had complained to Tri-State's higher-up LaShonda Jones gives pause in light of the graphic
nature of the statements and conduct that FAC ¶ 11 ascribes to Tri-State's Director of Human
Resources.

Next, some of Tri-State's Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") pose pleading problems. Here
they are:
1.

Both AD 1 and AD 3 contain the telltale "to the extent" tipoff that
Tri-State does not now have anything to question the subjects addressed
there. Both of those ADs are stricken -- without prejudice, of course, to
possible proper assertion if future developments in this action disclose a
basis for doing so.

2.

Because AD 5 is squarely at odds with FAC ¶ 12 -- a contradiction that
directly flouts the principles underlying Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (see App'x ¶ 5
to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill.
2001)) -- it too is stricken, this time without leave to amend.

There is no reason that client Tri-State should pay for those basic pleading errors made
by its counsel. Accordingly no charge is to be made by counsel for the time and any expenses
incurred in curing any flaw referred to here, and Tri-State's counsel is directed to apprise the
client to that effect via a letter accompanied by a copy of this memorandum order, with a copy of
that forwarding letter to be transmitted to this Court's chambers (purely as an informational
matter, not for filing).

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 31, 2014

-2-