Opinion
No. 04 C 2038
April 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address several flaws in the Answer just filed by G.G. Schiller Associates, L.L.C. ("GG Schiller") to the Complaint brought against it and Glen Schiller by A-Tech International, Ltd. (USA) ("A-Tech"), As reflected here, those flaws are sufficiently numerous to require the filing of a self-contained Amended Answer, to obviate the need for this Court and A-Tech's counsel to deal with patchwork pleading in this action.
To begin with, the Answer's caption is wrong. As this Court was careful to explain to counsel for GG Schiller when he earlier filed an erroneous motion for consolidation of this action with Case No. 04 C 1952 (at that time this case was pending on the calendar of this Court's colleague Honorable Jack: Darrah), no consolidation of the two lawsuits could then be ordered, and none has been ordered since then. Consolidation of cases under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 42(a) is a concept that is entirely separate and apart from the reassignment of a related case under this District Court's LR 40.4.
Next, Answer ¶¶ 1 and 4 do not conform to the type of disclaimer that is required by the second sentence of Rule 8(b) as a condition to a responding party's getting the benefit of a deemed denial — see App, ¶ 1 to State Farm Mat. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001), In addition, each of those paragraphs and Answer ¶¶ 3, 5, 7 and 11 contain meaningless demands for "strict proof," all of which are stricken — again see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm.
Finally, this Court has already made it clear that the allegations in Complaint ¶ 2 and the response in Answer ¶ 2 do not address the relevant facts for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, which served as the jurisdictional basis for removal of this action from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Accordingly, when GG Schiller's counsel returns to the drawing board, Answer ¶ 2 should contain the appropriate assertions (and not jurisdictional irrelevancies) in that respect.
As indicated at the outset, then, GG Schiller's entire Answer is stricken, but leave is hereby granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Court's chambers on or before April 20, 2004 (with a copy of course to be transmitted contemporaneously to A-Tech's counsel). And because all of the deficiencies referred to here stem from counsel's errors, there is no reason that the client should have to pay for making the required corrections. No charge is to therefore be made for the time and expense incurred by GG Schiller's counsel in preparing the Amended Answer. Counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).