Opinion
Case No. 06-C-763.
April 23, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff filed a nuisance motion for judgment on the pleadings. He alleges most of the defendants did not answer his complaint, which in his view justifies a ruling in his favor on the merits. He asserts in a footnote that while these defendants did answer his amended complaint, they did not answer his original complaint. While the distinction West draws is both irrelevant and highly technical, it is also untrue. The docket reflects that the defendants filed an answer to the original complaint on October 16, 2006 (Docket No. 11), and an answer to the amended complaint on January 2, 2007 (Docket No. 26.) The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore DENIED.