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.

UNITED TRANSFER, INC. v. ALLIED WASTE TRANSPORTATION

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


August 10, 2005.

UNITED TRANSFER, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
v.
ALLIED WASTE TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant/Counterplaintiff.

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

MEMORANDUM ORDER

United Transfer, Inc. ("United") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Counterclaim filed against it by Allied Waste Transportation, Inc. ("Allied"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require United's counsel to cure some fundamental pleading errors contained in that responsive pleading — in that respect, see the Appendix to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

To begin with, each of Answer ¶¶ 3, 4 and 11 fails to respond to the corresponding Counterclaim allegations on the premise that those allegations "contain legal conclusions to which no response from United is required." Not so. No such exception is authorized by the first sentence of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b) — and see App. ¶ 2 to State Farm. Those paragraphs of the Answer are stricken.

  Next, each of Answer ¶¶ 6, 9-11, 17, 21-23 and 26 employs the locution that some document "speaks for itself." Whatever that may mean (see App. ¶ 3 to State Farm), it plays no proper part in federal pleading. All of those assertions are stricken as well.

  Finally, each of Answer ¶¶ 9-11 and 17 sets out a purported denial "to the extent" that certain allegations by Allied are contrary to one of the documents that assertedly "speaks for itself." That usage of "to the extent" is a sure tipoff to a totally uninformative assertion that does not satisfy the notice pleading concept embodied in the Rules. Hence each of those paragraphs of the Answer is also stricken.*fn1

  United's counsel are granted leave to file an appropriate amendment to the Answer in this Court's chambers on or before August 22, 2005 (with a copy being transmitted contemporaneously to Allied's counsel). Because there is no reason why United should pay for its counsel's errors, no charge is to be made to United for the added work and expense incurred in correcting those errors. United'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.