LOBACZ v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 13 C 1777. (2013)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20130708549
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. City of Chicago ("City"), one of the defendants in this employment discrimination action brought by its former employee Nicholas Lobacz ("Lobacz") has filed its Answer to Lobacz's Amended Complaint ("AC"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the problematic nature of the affirmative defenses ("ADs") that City has advanced following the Answer itself. All four ADs share the flaw that they really do not apprise Lobacz o
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. City of Chicago ("City"), one of the defendants in this employment discrimination action brought by its former employee Nicholas Lobacz ("Lobacz") has filed its Answer to Lobacz's Amended Complaint ("AC"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the problematic nature of the affirmative defenses ("ADs") that City has advanced following the Answer itself. All four ADs share the flaw that they really do not apprise Lobacz or..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
City of Chicago ("City"), one of the defendants in this employment discrimination action brought by its former employee Nicholas Lobacz ("Lobacz") has filed its Answer to Lobacz's Amended Complaint ("AC"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the problematic nature of the affirmative defenses ("ADs") that City has advanced following the Answer itself.
All four ADs share the flaw that they really do not apprise Lobacz or this Court as to whether and to what extent the allegations of the AC, taken as gospel as called for by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) and the caselaw applying it (see also App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)), are vulnerable to the matters that City sets out. As this Court views it, notice pleading is just as much an obligation of a defendant in the federal system as it is of a plaintiff, and the manner in which City has framed the purported ADs is totally uninformative in that respect — each is stated in purely hypothetical terms.
Accordingly ADs 1 through 3 are stricken, without prejudice to their possible reassertion in appropriately fleshed-out terms. AD 4 is stricken as well, although it may be renewed at some later date if and when factual discovery reveals a failure on Lobacz's part to mitigate his damages.
Source: Leagle
