From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laborers' Pension Fund v. King Larsen Construction, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Oct 5, 2001
No. 01 C 6855 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2001)

Opinion

No. 01 C 6855

October 5, 2001


MEMORANDUM ORDER


King Larsen Construction, Inc. and M.A. King Construction, Inc. have filed a purported Answer to the ERISA Complaint brought against them by two employee benefit funds ("Funds"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require the correction of defense counsel's disregard of the plain language of the second sentence of Wed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b).

That sentence could scarcely be written in more straightforward English, and it identifies exactly what any defendant must disclaim to get the benefit of a deemed denial of a plaintiff's allegations (see also App. ¶ 61 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). So it is understandably annoying when lawyers disregard that plain directive and tender a responsive pleading that is shot through with departures from that language that do not reveal whether, in the objective good faith demanded by Rule 11, a defendant can indeed meet the demanding standards so carefully prescribed by the Rule — in this instance, Answer ¶ 3, 4, 6, 10 through 18, 20 through 23 and 28 through 30 are deficient on that score. Indeed, it is more than doubly annoying when less than two weeks ago the selfsame lawyer, acting for the selfsame clients, had his attention called expressly to the StateFarm v. Riley Appendix in connection with his unfamiliarity with still another fundamental principle of federal pleading.

See this Court's September 26 memorandum order in Cement Masons Pension Fund v. King Larson, No. 01 C 2919. And in that respect defense counsel may be assured, despite what this Court's secretary reported as to the nature of his insolent telephonic inquiry on receipt of that order, that this Court is not "sick" because it regards conformity to the Rules as the responsibility of any lawyer who seeks to practice in federal court. Those who live in glass houses surely ought to refrain from throwing stones.

Under all of the circumstances one aspect of the response does seem a bit ironic: Defense counsel's website begins with the self-evaluation of "LegalStrongMinds." In any event, the current Answer is stricken in its entirety, with leave granted to file a proper Amended Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course to Funds' counsel) on or before October 19, 2001.

As was true in Case No. 01 C 2919, no charge is to be made to defendants by their counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. And this time defense counsel are ordered to apprise their clients to that effect by a letter accompanied by a copy of this opinion, with a copy of the letter to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).


Summaries of

Laborers' Pension Fund v. King Larsen Construction, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Oct 5, 2001
No. 01 C 6855 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2001)
Case details for

Laborers' Pension Fund v. King Larsen Construction, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LABORERS' PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KING LARSEN CONSTRUCTION…

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

Date published: Oct 5, 2001

Citations

No. 01 C 6855 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2001)