United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
April 8, 2004.
A-TECH INTERNATIONAL, LTD. (USA) Plaintiff,
GLENN G. SCHILLER, individually, et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address several flaws
in the Answer just filed by G.G. Schiller & Associates, L.L.C. ("GG
Schiller") to the Complaint brought against it and Glen Schiller by
A-Tech International, Ltd. (USA) ("A-Tech"), As reflected here, those
flaws are sufficiently numerous to require the filing of a self-contained
Amended Answer, to obviate the need for this Court and A-Tech's counsel
to deal with patchwork pleading in this action.
To begin with, the Answer's caption is wrong. As this Court was careful
to explain to counsel for GG Schiller when he earlier filed an erroneous
motion for consolidation of this action with Case No. 04 C 1952 (at that
time this case was pending on the calendar of this Court's colleague
Honorable Jack: Darrah), no consolidation of the two lawsuits could then
be ordered, and none has been ordered since then. Consolidation of cases
under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 42(a) is a concept that is entirely separate
and apart from the reassignment of a related case under this District Court's LR 40.4.
Next, Answer ¶¶ 1 and 4 do not conform to the type of disclaimer that is
required by the second sentence of Rule 8(b) as a condition to a
responding party's getting the benefit of a deemed denial see App, ¶ 1
to State Farm Mat. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D.
Ill. 2001), In addition, each of those paragraphs and Answer ¶¶ 3, 5, 7
and 11 contain meaningless demands for "strict proof," all of which are
stricken again see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm.
Finally, this Court has already made it clear that the allegations in
Complaint ¶ 2 and the response in Answer ¶ 2 do not address the
relevant facts for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship,
which served as the jurisdictional basis for removal of this action from
the Circuit Court of Cook County. Accordingly, when GG Schiller's counsel
returns to the drawing board, Answer ¶ 2 should contain the appropriate
assertions (and not jurisdictional irrelevancies) in that respect.
As indicated at the outset, then, GG Schiller's entire Answer is
stricken, but leave is hereby granted to file a self-contained Amended
Answer in this Court's chambers on or before April 20, 2004 (with a copy
of course to be transmitted contemporaneously to A-Tech's counsel). And
because all of the deficiencies referred to here stem from counsel's
errors, there is no reason that the client should have to pay for making
the required corrections. No charge is to therefore be made for the time and
expense incurred by GG Schiller's counsel in preparing the Amended
Answer. Counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by
letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an
informational matter (not for filing).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.