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.

Grassano v. Serumido

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


January 25, 2008

FORTUNA GRASSANO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SERUMIDO, LTD., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Serumido, Ltd. ("Serumido") has filed its Answer to the Complaint brought against it by Fortuna Grassano in this action just removed to this District Court from the Circuit Court of Cook County. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the manner in which Serumido's counsel has dealt with Complaint ¶3:

3. At all relevant times, Jonathan Goldsmith ("Goldsmith") was acting as an agent/employee of defendant within the course of said agency/employment.

ANSWER: Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations of Paragraph 3 as they are too vague to permit a rationale response. Further answering, Defendant states that Goldsmith did on various occasions act as an agent of Defendant.

Quite apart from counsel's misspelling of "rational," that purported response is really nonsensical. Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b) calls for a straightforward response ("aye" or "nay") to Grassano's readily answerable allegation, and Answer ¶3 is accordingly stricken with leave to file an appropriate amended answer to that paragraph on or before February 1, 2008, failing which the allegation in Complaint ¶3 will be deemed to have been admitted.

20080125

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



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.