Resicom Custom Painting and Maintenance, Inc. v. Professional Retail Services, Inc.

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint 67 is denied. This action will continue to go forward on the single theory of recovery that has survived in the original Complaint. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/1/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

RESICOM CUSTOM PAINTING AND
MAINTENANCE, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
a New York corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 9190

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Nearly three years into the litigation of this case brought by Resicom Custom Painting
and Maintenance, Inc. ("Resicom") against Professional Retail Services, Inc. ("PRS"), plaintiff
Resicom now seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") that advances a
promissory estoppel theory of recovery (Dkt. No. 67). On July 26 PRS has responded with its
lawyer-drafted "Affirmation in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To File a First
Amended Complaint" (Dkt. No. 80), which clearly scotches Resicom's belated contention.
For a quarter century this Court has sought to preach the gospel taught by such cases as
NAACP v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F. 2d 287 (7th Cir. 1992) and Bartholet v. Reishauer
A.G.(Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) -- cases that properly decry the all-too-common
practice of substituting the state courts' "cause of action" approach for the federal concept of
"claim for relief," with the former approach employing a different count (despite the more
restrictive language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)) to set out each so-called "cause of action."
Resicom's current effort exemplifies that approach.

Even more tellingly, the PRS Affirmation exposes the bogus nature of Resicom's
assertion that it has only recently discovered the predicate for its promissory estoppel theory of
recovery. PRS' attorney has quoted from our Court of Appeals' opinion in Dumas v. Infinity
Broad. Corp., 416 F.2d 671, 678-79 (7th Cir. 2005) (see Affirmation ¶ 22), and the quoted
language is spot on -- it could well have been written for this case.
In sum, Resicom's Dkt. No. 67 motion is denied. This action will continue to go forward
on the single theory of recovery that has survived in the original Complaint.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 1, 2017

-2-