Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X v. THULL

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


October 19, 2004.

COMCAST OF ILLINOIS X, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MICKI THULL, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Micki Thull ("Thull") has filed her Answer to the Complaint brought against her by Comcast of Illinois X, LLC ("Comcast"), which charges her with illegal piracy of its proprietary cable communications. Because nearly every paragraph of the Answer violates one or another of the fundamental legal principles that govern responsive pleadings in the federal courts, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require Thull's counsel to return to the drawing board.

To begin with, the vast majority of the Answer's responses (Answer ¶¶ -5, 7-22, 26-28, 31 and 34-37) are wholly at odds with the dictates of the second sentence of Fed.R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b) as to the content of the disclaimer required for a responding party to get the benefit of a deemed denial — see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Moreover:

1. Even apart from that noncompliance, it is of course oxymoronic to disclaim the existence of enough information to confirm or deny a complaint's allegations and then to deny those same allegations.
2. There is no legitimate basis for Thull's disclaimer of Comcast's allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction (Complaint ¶ 2) and venue (Complaint ¶ 3). Unless Thull has an objective good faith basis for doing otherwise (see Rule 11(b)), those allegations must instead be admitted.
3. It is patently absurd for Thull to respond to the incorporation by reference of earlier paragraphs in Complaint ¶¶ 26 and 34 with a disclaimer — disclaimer of what?
4. It is equally impermissible to advance a disclaimer in response to Comcast's allegations as to statutory provisions in Complaint ¶¶ 27 and 35.*fn1
  Finally, Answer ¶ 33's demand for "strict proof," whatever that is, is also improper — again see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm. That too should be eliminated from the Amended Answer ordered hereafter.

  Because the flaws in the Answer are so pervasive, it is stricken in its entirety. Thull's counsel is ordered to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course to be transmitted contemporaneously to Comcast's counsel) on or before October 29, 2004. No charge is to be made to Thull by her counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors. Thull's 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).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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