Opinion
No. 03 C 226
February 27, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendants in this action brought by Arlene Coles ("Coles"), assertedly under the auspices of ERISA, have filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to Coles' Complaint. Although the Answer itself is straightforward and requires no comment, some problematic aspects of the ADs have occasioned this sua sponte memorandum order.
A.D. 1 asserts that Coles' "claims are pre-empted and barred by" ERISA. Just how it is possible for a claim that expressly invokes ERISA to be "pre-empted" by that statute is puzzling, and defendants owe both Coles and this Court something better by way of an explanation.
A.D. 2 asserts generally that Coles is knocked out of the box by her "failure to comply with terms and conditions of the subject employee benefits plan." But in so stating, defense counsel have ignored the principle that defendants as well as plaintiffs must comply with the notice pleading approach enforced in the federal courts. Any such generalized assertion fails apprise either Coles or this Court of the nature of the claimed failure, and defendants must do so.
A.D. 4 (there is no A.D. 3) seeks to call upon doctrines of setoff and recoupment to reduce Coles' potential recovery to the extent that she has recovered amounts from other sources. But it would seem that unless such a provision for the reduction of benefits is contained in the employee benefit plan on which Coles sues, no such limitation on her potential recovery would be appropriate. Defendants must provide Coles and this Court with some authority to support that AD.
Finally, A.D. 5 is just as uninformative as A.D. 2. If it is to be retained by defendants, they must flesh out the nature of their contention in that respect.
Accordingly all of the ADs are stricken, albeit without prejudice to their possible reassertion in appropriate form. Defendants are granted until March 10, 2003 to file an amended set of ADs, failing which all of the previously-asserted ADs will be deemed to have been waived.