R.F. Technologies, Inc. et al v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, plaintiffs are ordered to file an amendment to the Complaint (not a self-contained fully Amended Complaint) to enable Greenberg Traurig, LLP ("Greenberg") to meet the allega tions against it head-on. That filing should be made on or before March 31, 2017 (with a courtesy copy to be delivered to this Court's chambers, as called for by LR 5.2(f) and this Court's website), with a status hearing then set for 9 a.m. April 7, 2017 to discuss what modified pleading on Greenberg's part may be called for. Status hearing previously set for 3/28/2017 is vacated. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/20/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

R.F. TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an Illinois
Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., a Virginia
Professional Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 1886

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has reviewed the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by law firm
Greenberg Traurig, LLP ("Greenberg") as one of the defendants in this action, which was
originally brought by R.F. Technologies, Inc. ("R.F. Technologies") and Bob Noorian in the
Circuit Court of Cook County and was then removed to this federal District Court on
diversity-of-citizenship grounds. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of a
problem, correctly identified by Greenberg, with the manner in which the Complaint has been
structured.
It is true that this action sounds in alleged legal malpractice on the part of both Greenberg
and its co-defendants -- another law firm, LeClair Ryan, P.C. ("LeClair Ryan") and a member of
that firm -- and that Complaint Count II targets Greenberg, while Complaint Count I targets its
co-defendants. But the Supreme Court's tightening of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards by
adding the requirement of "plausibility" (a new pleading regime introduced by what this Court
refers to as the Twombly-Iqbal canon) has also underscored the basic principle that federal

pleading is notice pleading -- and in this instance the Complaint often employs a collective usage
that does not provide the requisite notice as to just what conduct ascribed to Greenberg forms the
gravamen of the Complaint against it (see, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 23, 25 and 26).
That collective treatment might perhaps not be as problematic if the two law firms had
represented R.F. Technologies throughout its embroilment in the California litigation that the
parties refer to as the "HM Electronics litigation." But that was not at all the case -- instead the
Greenberg firm was a latecomer to that lawsuit, beginning its involvement solely as a consultant
but then becoming LeClair Ryan's co-counsel for only a short period of time. Under those
circumstances, to meet the Twombly-Iqbal "plausibility" requirement as to Greenberg, the
Complaint needs to be fleshed out to identify just what deficiencies in Greenberg's representation
assertedly failed to meet professional standards and just how that claimed failure assertedly
caused plaintiffs to settle the HM Electronics litigation for millions of dollars, in contrast with
the present totally conclusory allegations in the present Complaint.
This is not at all an effort to convert this case to an inappropriate fact-pleading rather than
notice-pleading regime. To the contrary, a return of plaintiffs' counsel to the drawing board
should sharpen the focus of the parties in a manner that should produce better notice pleading
than the parties' current interchange (see particularly Complaint ¶¶ 25 and 26 and Greenberg's
Answers to those paragraphs).
Accordingly plaintiffs are ordered to file an amendment to the Complaint (not a selfcontained fully Amended Complaint) to enable Greenberg to meet the allegations against it headon. That filing should be made on or before March 31, 2017 (with a courtesy copy to be
delivered to this Court's chambers, as called for by LR 5.2(f) and this Court's website), with a

-2-

status hearing then set for 9 a.m. April 7, 2017 to discuss what modified pleading on Greenberg's
part may be called for.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 20, 2017

-3-