Opinion
03 C 2621
August 29, 2003.
MOTION TO DISMISS
There is a motion to dismiss the federal claims in this case and to strike the pleading. I do not address the federal claims issues because I grant the motion to strike the pleading without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to replead. The complaint is not in conformity with the federal rules. This is no great sin because it was filed in state court and need not have complied with Rule 8. On the other hand, the state law mandates plain and concise statements.
I have read the complaint and I can understand why it was drafted in the manner it was. The subject matter of the complaint is one which ordinarily is subject to significant public controversy — A challenge by a public housing authority to the zoning decision of a local municipality. It is both reasonable and understandable for the plaintiff to wish to set out the full panoply of reasons why it concluded that the lawsuit was justified. But this purpose has been achieved and now it comes time for the defendant to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint and for me to read the papers and decide the questions presented. In this case, it would serve the court and counsel better if the complaint were replead in compliance with Rule 8. To do so would mean the fundamental questions in this case can be addressed more efficiently and with greater precision than is now the case.
The motion to strike is granted and the plaintiffs are given 28 days to file an amended complaint.