IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
June 9, 2009
DR. JOSEPH NICOLOSI, PLAINTIFF,
DONELLE DADIGAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
On May 19, 2009 counsel for Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ("Nicolosi") filed a 75-page, 226-paragraph, 10-count Complaint against a number of individual and corporate defendants, coupled with a two-inch stack of only part of the exhibits referred to in the Complaint.*fn1 That obviously impermissible federal filing triggered this Court's prompt issuance of the Order, which (1) criticized Nicolosi's counsel for the extensive pleading of evidence, in violation of the plain directive in Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a), (2) accordingly struck the Complaint and exhibits from the court file and (3) then concluded by stating:
This order is issued without prejudice to Nicolosi's filing of a suitable Amended Complaint on or before June 8, 2009, although in that respect his counsel must pay closer attention to the required jurisdictional allegations as to diversity than Complaint ¶¶6, 9 and 12 now reflect.
Now Nicolosi's counsel has indeed filed a June 4 Amended Complaint--this time occupying "only" 53 pages and 198 paragraphs (it still comprises 10 counts, although counsel's labeling of each count as a separate "claim" mistakes that federal pleading concept--see, e.g., NAACP v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 291-93 (7th Cir. 1992)). That new filing reflects counsel's continuing disregard of the message, implicit in Rule 8(a) and hence in the Order, that pleading in the federal courts is a function for lawyers and not for novelists manque (or even short story authors manque).*fn2
Moreover, despite the concluding directive in the Order, Amended Complaint ¶1 has paid no heed to the requirements for establishing the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction in a diversity action--see particularly 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). Accordingly both the Amended Complaint and this action are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Finally, although enough is ordinarily enough, sometimes enough is too much. In light of Nicolosi's heedless inattention to the guidance that was sought to be conveyed in the Order, the foregoing dismissal is ordered to be with prejudice so far as federal court filing is concerned. Nicolosi's lawyers are free to seek a judicial haven that may be more hospitable to the prolix type of pleading that the lawyers seem bound and determined to advance.