Joyce v. Trans Union, LLC et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM Order: The initial status hearing is set for 8:45 a.m. (Chicago time) on July 9, 2015. If any out-of-district lawyer understandably wishes to participate telephonically rather than travel to Chicago for what should be a very brief initial session, that information should be provided to this Court's courtroom deputy (312-435-5767) at least a few working days in advance of the status hearing. (For further details see Memorandum Order) Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/29/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

JOHN R. JOYCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION, LLC, and
CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 5467

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action has been transferred to this District Court from the District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and this District Court's computerized random assignment
system has placed the case on this Court's calendar. In this era of electronic filing that transfer
involved no transfer of physical filings in the case, so that this Court has necessarily drawn its
information from a docket printout and has also printed out copies of plaintiff John Joyce's
Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] and the Answer of the sole remaining defendant, CoreLogic Credco,
LLC ("Credco") [Dkt. No. 9]. This memorandum order is principally issued to apprise counsel
for the parties of some procedures followed in this judicial district and by this Court individually.
This district's LR 5.2(f) specifies that a paper copy of every filing in a case, even
electronic filings, must be provided for the assigned judge within one business day unless the
judge determines that a paper copy is not required. That provision stems from the entire court's
adoption of a "dealer's choice" system, under which the decision whether to call for such paper

copies is left to the individual judge. For its part, this Court has continued to opt for such paper
copies (a requirement emphasized in the opening entry in this Court's website).
As to counsel for the litigants, any out-of-district lawyer must of course apply for pro hac
vice admission and should communicate with the Clerk's Office for that purpose. LR 83.15(a)
requires the designation of a member of the bar of this Court having an office within this district
as local counsel, but that does not require the active participation of local counsel (let alone
requiring local counsel to serve as lead counsel) -- to the contrary, that requirement is really a
matter of administrative convenience in light of the historical difference in notice requirements
between personal service and mail service (counsel should become familiar with LR 83.15(c)
and LR 5.3).
Although this Court had originally expected this memorandum order to be limited to
what has already been covered plus the setting of an initial status hearing, the printout of
Credco's Answer has revealed a generally obstructionist approach to the task of pleading, really
out of synch with the underlying concept of notice pleading that seeks to apprise the other party
of just what is and what is not in issue -- an approach exemplified as to complaints by the
Twombly-Iqbal canon. Accordingly some problematic aspects of the Answer will be dealt with
before this order turns to setting the status hearing.
First, Credco's counsel obviously believes that any complaint allegation that might be
labeled a "legal conclusion" (a label to which Credco's counsel gives an unduly broad sweep)
does not call for an answer. Not so -- see App'x ¶ 2 to this Court's opinion in State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Accordingly the first sentences of
each of Answer ¶¶ 2, 20, 21, 30, 32 and 33 are stricken, as is the second sentence of Answer
¶ 19. As for Answer ¶¶ 29 and 31, they are stricken in their totality because those paragraphs
-2-

also contain what seems to be unsupportable Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) disclaimers and
must therefore be repleaded. 1
Next, Credco's counsel has coupled each Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer with the phrase "which
are accordingly denied." But it is of course oxymoronic for a party to assert (presumably in the
subjective and objective good faith required by Rule 11(b)) 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 Rule 11(b), the quoted language is stricken from
each of Answer ¶¶ 1, 4 through 18 and 29 through 33.
Lastly as to Credco's current pleading, its laundry list of no fewer than 13 purported
affirmative defenses is ill-considered in a number of respects. In that regard generally, see App'x
¶ 5 to State Farm. This Court will not lengthen this memorandum order unduly by providing
Credco's counsel with a chapter-and-verse critique, but it may spend some minutes during the
initial status hearing in identifying in a more particularized fashion the flawed ADs (which are
regrettably reflective of counsel's generally obstructive approach to the pleading process).
Finally, the initial status hearing is set for 8:45 a.m. (Chicago time) on July 9, 2015. If
any out-of-district lawyer understandably wishes to participate telephonically rather than travel
to Chicago for what should be a very brief initial session, that information should be provided to
this Court's courtroom deputy (312-435-5767) at least a few working days in advance of the
status hearing. This Court's courtroom deputy will be responsible for placing the telephone call,
but if more than one out-of-district lawyer wishes to participate telephonically the lawyers
______________________________
1
This memorandum order will simply disregard the similar flaws in Answer ¶¶ 22
through 27, all of which are part of Complaint Count I, which is advanced solely against
now-dismissed codefendant Trans Union, LLC and not against Credco.
-3-

should make advance arrangements for conference call handling, so that the courtroom deputy
needs to place just one call.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 29, 2015

-4-