Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CANNELLA v. CORDELL ENTERPRISES

October 7, 1997

JOSEPH CANNELLA, Plaintiff, -vs- CORDELL ENTERPRISES, Defendant.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LINDBERG

 Plaintiff, Joseph Cannella, filed a complaint alleging claims against defendant, Cordell Enterprises, for age discrimination (Count I), wrongful discharge for plaintiff's planning to file a workers' compensation claim (Count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from the allegedly wrongful discharge (Count III). Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. FRCP 12(b)(6).

 The Seventh Circuit has said:

 
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that a complaint must identify the basis of jurisdiction and contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." . . . Complaints should be short and simple, giving the adversary notice while leaving the rest to further documents. . . .
 
. . . A complaint under rule 8 limns the claim; details of both fact and law come later, in other documents. Instead of asking whether the complaint points to the appropriate statute, a court should ask whether relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations. . .
 
. . . Complaints in a system of notice pleading initiate the litigation but recede into the background as the case progresses. Later documents, such as the pretrial order under Rule 16(e), refine the claim; briefs and memoranda supply the legal arguments that bridge the gap between facts and judgments.
 
Plaintiffs can plead themselves out of court.

 Bartholet v Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1077-78 (7th Cir 1992). Moreover:

 
Whether language in a complaint "can be interpreted" as deficient is immaterial. Unlike insurance contracts, complaints are construed favorably to their drafters. . . . Rule 8 establishes a system of notice pleading. A complaint need not narrate all relevant facts or recite the law; all it has to do is set out a claim for relief. . . . Over and over, appellate courts insist that a complaint not be dismissed unless no relief may be granted "under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1984) (emphasis added) . . . .
 
A plaintiff need not put all of the essential facts in the complaint. He may add them by affidavit or brief--even a brief on appeal.

 Hrubec v National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 981 F.2d 962, 963-64 (7th Cir 1992).

 Defendant contends that Count II fails to state a claim because:

 
Although Count II alleges that Cannella was employed by Cordell prior to the injury, Cannella fails to allege that he exercised a right guaranteed by the IWCA [Illinois Workers Compensation Act]. . . . Indeed, Cannella specifically alleges that he "planned to file" a workers' compensation claim. . . . Such an allegation is clearly insufficient to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under the IWCA.

 In other words, it is defendant's position that firing a worker because he is going to file a workers compensation claim is not actionable under the IWCA, even though firing that worker for actually filing a workers compensation claim would be actionable. What is more, defendant contends that the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Sweat v Peabody Coal Co., 94 F.3d 301 (7th Cir 1996), supports this proposition.

 Defendant argues:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.