IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
March 5, 2012
DAVID HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
GC Services Limited Partnership ("GC Services") has filed its Answer to this action brought by David Harris ("Harris") in which he charges GC Services with numerous statutory violations through assertedly harassing debt collection procedures. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of some problematic aspects of GC Services' Answer.
In substantial areas GC Services acknowledges the accuracy of Harris' allegations about telephone calls to him, including the dates involved, the partial identity of the callers (most often their first names only) and other matters. Yet those admissions are somehow followed by denials of Harris' total allegations or by or Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) disclaimers, responses that often appear to present problems in terms of the objective good faith demanded of a pleader by Rule 11(b).
As for the affirmative defenses ("ADs") that follow the Answer itself, each of them appears to leave something to be desired.
1. AD 1 is flat-out wrong when--as is required for AD purposes--Harris' allegations are accepted as gospel.
2. AD 2 would appear to be directly contradicted by the conduct of GC Services' personnel as described in the Complaint.
3. AD 3 is purely speculative and appears extraordinarily improbable--what agreement on Harris' part does GC Services suggest that calls for arbitration rather than invocation of the statutes on which Harris claims to rely?
Accordingly all three ADs are stricken.
As for the Answer itself, this Court does not propose to spend the time and effort to do counsel's work for them. Instead it urges that GC Services' counsel take another look at their work product to see whether some different treatment of the Complaint's allegations may be called for.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.