IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
November 17, 2010
STEVE PATNER, PLAINTIFF,
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Immediately after issuance of this Court's October 29, 2010 memorandum order ("Order"), Associated Banc-Corp. ("Associated") filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("AD") to the Complaint brought against it by its ex-employee Steve Patner. Although Associated's counsel has cured virtually all of the flaws identified in the Order,*fn1 the handling of the ADs still leaves something to be desired:
1. AD ¶20, the essential equivalent of a Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion, cannot be advanced in the objective and subjective good faith required of every party and every party's lawyer by Rule 11(b). That AD cannot be proffered without contradicting the Complaint's allegations (an impermissible stance for an AD). It is stricken.
2. Nothing in the Complaint even hints at an age discrimination claim, so that AD ¶21 impermissibly raises a strawman. It too is stricken.