WALKER v. MERCER HR SERVICES, LLC, 15 C 11522. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20160115s12
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Counsel for plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") has just delivered to this Court's chambers a document captioned "Plaintiff's Answer to Affirmative Defenses." Because no such pleading is allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 7(a)) unless ordered by this Court (see Rule 7(a)(7)), this Court's usual response to any such effort is to strike it sua sponte. But in this instance the filing has disclosed that defendant Mercer HR Servi
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . Counsel for plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") has just delivered to this Court's chambers a document captioned "Plaintiff's Answer to Affirmative Defenses." Because no such pleading is allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 7(a)) unless ordered by this Court (see Rule 7(a)(7)), this Court's usual response to any such effort is to strike it sua sponte. But in this instance the filing has disclosed that defendant Mercer HR Servic..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Counsel for plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") has just delivered to this Court's chambers a document captioned "Plaintiff's Answer to Affirmative Defenses." Because no such pleading is allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 7(a)) unless ordered by this Court (see Rule 7(a)(7)), this Court's usual response to any such effort is to strike it sua sponte. But in this instance the filing has disclosed that defendant Mercer HR Services, LLC ("Mercer") must have filed its Answer (including the challenged affirmative defenses ("ADs")) without complying with this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that mandates delivery of a hard copy to the judge assigned to the case unless the judge has opted to forgo such delivery (as this Court has not). Hence a different course of action is appropriate.
Accordingly:
1. Mercer's counsel is ordered to deliver a copy of its responsive pleading to this Court's chambers forthwith, accompanied by a check for $100 payable to the Clerk of Court as a fine for the LR violation (that requirement conforms to this Court's consistent policy after the expiration of a number of working days without a party's having complied with LR 5.2(f)).
2. Given the nature of a number of the matters raised in Walker's pleading, which in several respects echo this Court's sua sponte rejection of inappropriate ADs (see App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)), this Court will then review Mercer's ADs with an eye to taking appropriate action.
Source: Leagle
