MURPHY v. VILLAGE OF UNIVERSITY PARK, 15 C 8673. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160217896
Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . In response to this Court's January 27, 2016 memorandum order ("Order") that identified some defects in the responsive pleading filed by counsel for Village of University Park ("University Park") and struck that pleading so that a self-contained replacement might be generated, counsel timely filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and transmitted a copy to this Court's chambers. Unfortunately some aspects of that replacem
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . In response to this Court's January 27, 2016 memorandum order ("Order") that identified some defects in the responsive pleading filed by counsel for Village of University Park ("University Park") and struck that pleading so that a self-contained replacement might be generated, counsel timely filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and transmitted a copy to this Court's chambers. Unfortunately some aspects of that replaceme..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
In response to this Court's January 27, 2016 memorandum order ("Order") that identified some defects in the responsive pleading filed by counsel for Village of University Park ("University Park") and struck that pleading so that a self-contained replacement might be generated, counsel timely filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses and transmitted a copy to this Court's chambers. Unfortunately some aspects of that replacement continue to reflect defense counsel's having missed the main lesson that the Order sought to convey: the idea that federal pleading is not a game of dodgem but rather an informative system of notice pleading — as Order at 2 said:
In brief, the function of pleadings should be to identify which matters asserted in a complaint are contested and at issue and which are not — and the handling by University Park's counsel has not served that goal at all.
Just a few examples bear mention — and, more importantly, correction. Here are some cogent instances:1
1. There is no justification for Amended Answer ("AA") ¶ 8's continued disregard of a key component of Complaint ¶ 8. AA ¶ 8 is stricken, and University Park is deemed to have admitted Complaint ¶ 8.
2. That is equally true as to AA ¶ 13. That paragraph is stricken, and Complaint ¶ 13 is deemed admitted.
3. AA ¶ 16 is similarly flawed, so that Complaint ¶ 16 is also deemed admitted.
4. Despite the almost total (and quite unacceptable) nonresponsiveness of AA ¶ 17 to Complaint ¶ 17, this Court is loath to visit the same consequence on that nonresponse. Instead AA ¶ 17 will have to be done over, with careful attention being given to just which allegations of Complaint ¶ 17 are put in issue and which are not.
5. AA ¶ 19 marks a reversion to the pattern of nonresponsiveness referred to in a number of the earlier examples. Again it constitutes an impermissible hedge, so that Complaint ¶ 19 is deemed admitted as well.
Because the rulings in this memorandum order do not call for a completely new self-contained Second Amended Answer, an appropriate amendment to the Amended Answer is ordered to be filed on or before February 26, 2016. But the directive in the last two sentences of the Order applies with equal force to this memorandum order.2
FootNotes
1. This memorandum order has not sought to be exhaustive, nor should it be misunderstood as indicating any ultimate view on the merits of this litigation. If counsel for plaintiff Daniel Murphy were to challenge any other aspects of defense counsel's filing as a matter of pleading, this Court would perforce entertain such objections.
2. One minor item noted by this Court (and indeed, that had been noted but not commented on as to defense counsel's original effort) is that the demand for jury trial in the Complaint is regularly responded to by a demand for a 12-person jury. As a matter of practice, this Court rarely convenes a 12-person jury in civil cases, reserving such size for particularly long civil trials (see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 48).
Source: Leagle
