IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
August 12, 2010
COACH, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Xiao Hua Yang ("Yang") has filed her Answer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (collectively "Coach") in which she is named as a co-defendant. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of one pervasive problematic aspect of the Answer.
Apart from the Answer's numerous denials of the Coach allegations as they apply to Yang herself, the bulk of the responses (Answer ¶¶5-8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20-29, 30 [as to most subparagraphs)], 54, 69, 70, 77, 85, 95 and 96) attempt to get the benefit of the deemed denial afforded by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5). But the assertions in all of those paragraphs inexplicably fail to track the straightforward roadmap provided by that Rule--see also App'x ¶1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
Accordingly all of the cited paragraphs of the Answer are stricken. Because of the pervasiveness of the error referred to here, an amendment confined to those paragraphs would pose the need to flip back and forth between two pleadings to get a total sense of the posture of the case. Accordingly the entire Answer is stricken, but with leave granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer on or before August 23, 2010.
No charge is to be made to Yang by her counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors. Yang'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).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.