TCF Inventory Finance, Inc. v. SS/T Auto LLC et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Owenses' Amended Answer is stricken. They are granted leave to file a Second Amended Answer on or before November 17, 2016, so that the presently scheduled October 28 status hearing is vacated and replaced by a status hearing at 8:45 a.m. November 21, 2016. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/20/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TCF INVENTORY FINANCE, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SS/T AUTO LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 8315
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Court's three-page September 20, 2016 memorandum order (the "Order") was
"issued sua sponte because a host of problematic aspects of Owenses' responsive pleading." 1
That effort by this Court was intended to be both instructive and constructive, for the natural
unfamiliarity of nonlawyers with matters of legal practice and procedure (and particularly federal
practice and procedure) have properly led courts to look at their efforts through a less
demanding lens (see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)).
Unfortunately, Owenses' Amended Answer ("AA") that was filed last week, though a
good portion of it has been responsive to matters brought to their attention by the Order, contains
a host of errors, in one instance by ignoring entirely a necessary correction expressly identified in
the Order. And because that and other errors are so pervasive, this opinion will not endeavor to
__________________________
1
Here, as in the Order, co-defendants Timothy and Carrie Owens are referred to
collectively as "Owenses."
rank them in some order of seriousness, but will deal with them instead in the sequence in which
they appear in the AA.
Owenses' partial responsiveness to some issues identified in the Order carries them
through AA ¶ 7 without incident. But AA ¶ 8 begins a string of multiple matters that undercut
Owenses' attempted avoidance of their responsibilities in a major way:
1.
In part Owenses provide a nonresponse to the venue allegation in
Complaint ¶ 8, as brought against them and their wholly-owned limited
liability company SS/T Auto, LLC ("SS/T") by plaintiff TCF Inventory
Finance, Inc. ("TCF"), by asserting that this District Court "is not the most
convenient forum for this litigation." That flouts the allegation of
Complaint ¶ 8 (which is drawn directly from the contract btween the
parties) that "Borrower [SS/T] and the Guarantors [Owenses] consented to
the jurisdiction of the courts in Illinois." If Owenses believe that they
have a legal predicate for moving this lawsuit elsewhere on the basis that
this District Court "is not the most convenient forum," that must be
advanced by a properly supported motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). But
meanwhile they cannot deny that venue is lodged here by consent and
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
2.
In AA ¶ 8 Owenses prefer to forget that they sought and obtained from
TCF for SS/T (and hence for themselves as its sole owners) funds that
reached a level of close to $1M at the time of SS/T's default (which
triggered the joint and several liability of Owenses as Guarantors), so that
the notion that the venue provisions were somehow "contracts of
-2-
adhesion" (meaning they are assertedly unenforceable) reflects Owenses'
home-grown misunderstanding of that concept. Moreover, they repeat
that mistaken notion in AA ¶¶ 10 and 13. 2
3.
AA ¶ 8 also seeks to inject the notion that the so-called "contracts clauses
of adhesion in those documents . . . were not part of the 'dickered deal.'"
That internally quoted term "dickered deal" is totally meaningless in the
context of this litigation, in which SS/T and Owenses entered freely into a
transaction that brought them truly major financial benefits but now
attempt to squeeze out of liability for their contractual obligations without
any contention that their wills were overborne or that their commitments
were otherwise not volitional. That really meaningless notion has also
found its way into AA ¶¶ 10 and 13.
Next, although Order at 3 expressly rejected Owenses' original efforts to "avoid the issue
by stating that a document 'speaks for itself,'" while calling their attention specifically to an
earlier opinion by this Court addressing that subject, their current AA ¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 19, 33 and
42 persist in that unacceptable practice. That flouts the basic principles of Fed. R. Civ. P.
("Rule") 8(b), which permits three categories of permitted response to a plaintiff's allegations:
by an admission or denial (Rule 8(b)(1)(B)) or, if neither of those is available as to some
allegation in a defendant's exercise of the subjective and objective good faith demanded by Rule
__________________________
2
This opinion's references to the repetition of errors in the AA may not be exhaustive,
though this Court has sought to go through the AA with some care. If there are other places in
the AA that this opinion fails to catch, TCF is free to raise them -- or even better, Owenses as the
authors of those errors (who bear the basic responsibility for their mistakes) have the
responsibility for clearing away the underbrush.
-3-
11(b), by advancing a Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimer that the pleader "lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation." That last alternative is of course
unavailable in addressing an allegation to which a response is required as to the truth or lack of
truth of that allegation as to the content of a document. Owenses' dodges in that respect are
unacceptable, and they must go back to the drawing board to cure that defect.
Next in line comes the AA ¶ 12 confusion of the words "joint and several" in the
underlying document on which TCF sues 3 by Owenses' effort to inject the irrelevancy of the
State of Arizona's concept of "marital community" or "marital community obligation" into the
mix. Again that error is compounded by its repetition in AA ¶¶ 33, 37, 42 and 46. How the
State of Arizona may or may not treat Owenses' respective contractual responsibilities under
state law is wholly beside the mark, both because of the plain legal meaning of "joint and
several" and because of the choice of law provision in the document sued upon that calls for the
application of Illinois law.
Next, although the Order did not advert to the laundry list of proposed affirmative
defenses ("ADs") that were set out in the original Answer and carried forward in AA ¶ 25,
Owenses must be made aware that such a blunderbuss listing frustrates the uniform caselaw
construing and applying Rule 8(c) (see also App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley,
199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). If Owenses really believe that one or more of the grab
bag of items they have assembled in skeletal form really applies, they must raise any such matter
__________________________
3
If the concept of "several" liability is somehow unfamiliar to Owenses, any good
dictionary could clear up that difficulty.
-4-
by a properly advanced and supported motion so that such issues may be dealt with in an orderly
way.
Only one more item bears mention in this already-overlengthy opinion, though it is a vital
one. AA ¶ 37 seeks to cabin any judgment entered against Owenses based on the
earlier-referred-to notion of "marital community" and the "community property laws of the State
of Arizona, the likely jurisdiction where any judgment herein will be collected if not otherwise
paid." But that attempted hedge is in direct conflict with the United States Constitution's Full
Faith and Credit Cause and its statutory embodiment in 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
In brief summary, the bottom line here is that Owenses must return to the drawing board
once again, so their AA is stricken without prejudice (in the sense that this opinion does not
reflect a final judgment). They are granted leave to file a Second Amended Answer on or before
November 17, 2016, so that the presently scheduled October 28 status hearing is vacated and
replaced by a status hearing at 8:45 a.m. November 21, 2016.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 20, 2016
-5-
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?