IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
March 30, 2011
ALVIN J. FREEMAN, ETC., PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This memorandum opinion and order is issued sua sponte to address some problematic aspects of the Answer just filed by the United States in response to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("Act") complaint brought against it by Alvin Freeman, Executor of the Estate of decedent Chavonne Freeman. More particularly, those problems are posed by what are labeled as the First Defense through the Fifth Defense--clearly intended as affirmative defenses ("ADs")-- that precede the Answer itself.*fn1
First, however, the Answer at 1 n.1 correctly states that the United States is the only proper defendant under the Act.
Accordingly the United States Postal Service, listed first in the case caption, is dismissed as a defendant.
As for the ADs, however, they bear all the earmarks of a canned responsive pleading lodged somewhere in a government computer. And the uniform practice referred to in this opinion's n.1 would seem to confirm this Court's supposition.
More importantly, though, the ADs that form part of that pleading are out of sync with the universal principle that an AD admits the allegations of a complaint but then states a reason for the pleading defendant's non-liability or its lesser liability than the plaintiff would claim--see App'x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). In this instance:
1. AD 2 is totally at odds with the Complaint's allegations, and it is therefore stricken.*fn2
2. AD 3's assertion that some claimed fault and negligence on the part of plaintiff's decedent "was the proximate cause" of her injuries and her consequent damages is defective for the same reason. That statement is also stricken, although the AD's assertion of contributory negligence may stand.
3. AD 4 looks to be absurd boilerplate. In a situation in which a postal truck admittedly rear-ended the vehicle occupied by the decedent (Answer ¶10), resulting in her death, just how pray tell can the decedent be said to have "failed to mitigate her damages"? AD 4 too is stricken, but this time without prejudice to its possible reassertion if it were coupled with an explanation of a good faith belief (both subjective and objective) that supports it (see Rule 11(b)).
This Court regrets having to write an opinion of this critical nature. It is better to do so, however, than to permit such questionable pleading habits to go unchecked.