IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
May 7, 2009
WILLIAM J. WIEMANN, ETC., PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL GUARISE, DEFENDANT AND COUNTERPLAINTIFF,
WILLIAM WIEMANN, ET AL., COUNTERDEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
William Wiemann, individually and doing business as Bill Wiemann Motor Sports, LLC, and Bill Wiemann Sports, Inc. (collectively "Wiemann," treated as a singular noun after this sentence) have filed an Answer to the First Amended Counterclaim brought by Michael Guarise ("Guarise"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because what Wiemann has labeled as "affirmative defenses" ("ADs") that appear following the Answer itself do not comport with the concept embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(c) and the caselaw construing that Rule (see also App. ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001)).
Instead of accepting Guarise's allegations as true and going on to explain why his claim should nonetheless fail, the purported ADs advance assertions that conflict directly with Guarise's allegations. Thus AD 1 is at odds with the entire thrust of the Counterclaim; AD 1 impermissibly contradicts Counterclaim ¶¶19 and 20 (among others); AD 3 is in total conflict with Counterclaim ¶19; and AD 4, like AD 1, is inconsistent with the Counterclaim's allegations. Accordingly all four ADs are stricken, although the Answer itself stands.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.