IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
May 14, 2013
ACCOR FRANCHISING NORTH AMERICA, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
RAM SHIRDI, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
This Court has received from plaintiffs' attorney Paul Gamboa a copy of the "Response to Complaint" filed by defense counsel Tom Mathai nearly six months ago (November 25, 2012)--truly a courtesy copy, for it was of course attorney Mathai's responsibility to have complied with this District Court's LR 5.2(f). That Response regrettably reveals still another LR violation by attorney Mathai--the provision of LR 10.1, which requires a defendant to repeat the substance of each allegation by the plaintiff before setting out the response to that allegation (that requirement, which is most often complied with by copying rather than paraphrasing each of the plaintiff's allegations, has as its obvious purpose the reader's ability to see just what and what is not placed in issue without having to flip back and forth between two documents).
This Court's normal handling of such violations is to impose a $100 fine for LR 5.2(f) violations and a repleading requirement for LR 10.1 violations. Because attorney Gamboa has helpfully performed the service of curing the first of those delinquencies for attorney Mathai's benefit, this current order will address only the second.
In that respect defense counsel Mathai is ordered to file an Amended Answer on or before May 28 that complies with LR 10.1. No charge is to be made to defendants by their counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors. Attorney Mathai is ordered to apprise his clients to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.