From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tripathi v. Lincoln National Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Mar 30, 2010
No. 09 C 7339 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2010)

Opinion

No. 09 C 7339.

March 30, 2010


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Lincoln National Corporation ("Lincoln National") has filed its Answer and Defenses ("ADs") to the Amended Complaint of Employment Discrimination ("AC") brought against it by pro se plaintiff Leena Tripathi ("Tripathi"). This sua sponte memorandum order has been triggered by a few problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.

For example, Answer ¶ 8 follows an appropriate disclaimer that tracks Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) with the language "and therefore denies same." That is of course oxymoronic — how can a party that asserts (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it in accordance with Rule 11(b)? Accordingly the quoted phrase is stricken.

As for the asserted ADs, it appears that some do not pay full heed to the underlying concept of Rule 8(c) and the caselaw applying it (see also App'x ¶ 5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001)). But this Court will not take action in that respect on its own, leaving it to Tripathi to address what she may view as any questionable ADs.


Summaries of

Tripathi v. Lincoln National Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Mar 30, 2010
No. 09 C 7339 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2010)
Case details for

Tripathi v. Lincoln National Corporation

Case Details

Full title:LEENA V. TRIPATHI, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2010

Citations

No. 09 C 7339 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2010)