Calascibetta v. Village of Oak Park

Full title: SAM A. CALASCIBETTA, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF OAK PARK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date published: Oct 20, 2003

No. 03 C 4566 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2003)

Opinion

No. 03 C 4566

October 20, 2003

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

All three defendants in this employment discrimination action brought by Sam Calascibetta ("Calascibetta") — Village of Oak Park ("Village"), Village Attorney Raymond Heise ("Heise") and Assistant Village Manager M. Ray Wiggins ("Wiggins") — have filed Amended Answers and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to Calascibetta's Complaint. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to strike the meaningfully inadequate responsive pleadings filed by Heise and Wiggins and to require them to replead.

In each instance Heise and Wiggins forgoes answering Calascibetta's allegations in Complaint Counts One and Two on the premise that those allegations target only Village, and Wiggins also eschews a response to the allegations of Complaint Count Three on the basis that they are directed only against Heise. But in doing so their counsel neglects the fact that each of the counts advanced against their clients — Count Three against Heise and Count Four against Wiggins — begins in this fashion:

1-58. Plaintiff Sam A. Calascibetta realleges paragraphs 1-58, inclusive, of Count —,¹ as Paragraphs 1-58, inclusive, of this Count [Three or Four, as the case may be].

1 In Count Three the word omitted from the quoted text is "Two," and in Count Four the word omitted is "Three."

So when each defendant purportedly "restates and incorporates by reference" his responses to the earlier count, that is totally meaningless — it refers back to nothing at all.²

2 Nor is what has been referred to in the text merely harmless error. At least in part, the non-responded-to allegations ascribe some conduct to the individual defendants.

Accordingly, as stated at the outset, both Heise's and Wiggins' most recent responsive pleadings are stricken from the file. Their counsel are granted leave to file a Second Amended Answer and ADs³ in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course being transmitted to Calascibetta's counsel) on or before October 30, 2003. In the interest of conserving the environment as well as facilitating the review and comparison of the respective responses, counsel are directed to file a single pleading on behalf of the two individual defendants.

3 This memorandum order has not addressed the legal sufficiency of any of the ADs, so no inference should be drawn from granting leave to replead them.