Smith v. Inkster, City of et al

Filing 30

ORDER Denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Answers to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint by Defendant City of Inkster to be Deemed Admissions, and Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause as to why Sanctions should not be Imposed. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN SMITH
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-cv-15440
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.

CITY OF INKSTER, et al.
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S
VERIFIED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT CITY OF INKSTER TO BE DEEMED
ADMISSIONS, AND DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED [#17]

On February 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Answers to Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint by Defendant, City of Inkster, to be Deemed Admissions and Motion for Order
to Show Cause as to Why Sanctions Should be Imposed. See generally, Dkt. No. 17.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant, City of Inkster, made false pleadings in its answer by
responding to “simply plead” paragraphs in the complaint by stating, “Defendant admits
nor denies the allegations . . . for lack of sufficient knowledge or information, thereby
leaving Plaintiff to his proofs.” See generally Plt.’s Answer, Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff also
contends that because Defendant’s pleadings were “false” the relevant parts should be
deemed admissions, and Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees and costs for the filing
of the present motion. See Plt.’s Mot., Dkt. No. pgs. 2- 3.
Defendant filed its original answer on January 21, 2013. On February 22, 2013,

-1-

Defendant filed an amended answer to the complaint, resolving some of Plaintiff’s
objections to the answers. Most of the 356 allegations contained in Plaintiff’s forty-two (42)
page complaint state facts that may be in dispute or alleged facts that are the proper
subject to be addressed in discovery. In fact, many of the allegations are arguments made
by the Plaintiff.
The federal rules require a defendant to “admit or deny the averments upon which
the adverse party relies.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b). “Denials shall fairly meet the substance of
the averments denied.” Id. The Court finds that Defendant met the requirements of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 in its amended answer. See generally, Amended Answer,
Dkt. No. 19. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f)(“All pleadings shall be construed so as to do
substantial justice.”).
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to deem Defendant’s
answers to the verified complaint as admissions [#17] is DENIED.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs [#17] are also DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2013

/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-