Opinion
No. 02 C 7359
January 2, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Having failed in their effort to reject this action as insufficient in law (on December 11, 2002 this Court denied orally their Fed.R. Civ, P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Complaint), defendants have now filed their Answer to the Complaint in which they have been sued (1) with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and (2) with four state law claims, included pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). Even though defense counsel have sought to be meticulous in their responses, some flaws require them to replead.
For one thing, it will not do for any defendants to decide that certain allegations "are not directed against them," and thus to decline to respond to those allegations. That type of locution thus to decline to respond to those allegations. That type of locution may be in order once the Complaint has turned to its individual counts under which fewer than all defendants are targeted, but up to that point each defendant must respond to each allegation in one of the three ways permitted by Rule 8(b) — it does not matter that the answering defendant may not be named in the allegation being responded to.
Next, Answer ¶ 16 and 22 have in part departed from the disclaimer set out in the second sentence of Rule 8(b) as the price for a deemed denial. That too must be corrected — see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
Finally, the several assertions (Answer ¶ 17, 18, 19 and 23) that a document "speaks for itself" are also not permissible responses. Ira that respect, see App. ¶ 3 to State Farm.
To enable the reader to look at a single responsive pleading rather than a patchwork combination, the entire Answer is stricken. Leave is of course granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Courts chambers (with a copy of course being transmitted to plaintiffs' counsel) on or before January 13, 2003.