August 5, 2013
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL NO. 25 WELFARE FUND and MARIE HAASE, as Administrative Manager Plaintiffs,
WES SEDAM, Defendant.
SARA DARROW, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 25 Welfare Fund ("Plaintiff Fund") and Marie Haase ("Administrative Manager") allege that Defendant Wes Sedam is a participant in the Plaintiff Fund. Compl. at ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. The Plaintiff Fund allegedly paid benefits on Sedam's behalf after he was injured in an automobile accident. Id. at ¶ 6-8. After Sedam obtained a settlement for the accident, Plaintiffs sued Sedam because they allege that he refuses to reimburse the Plaintiff Fund, thereby violating the terms of the Plan and Reimbursement Acknowledgement and unjustly enriching himself. Id. at ¶ 10-11. Sedam filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, arguing that the complaint is predicated on an unenforceable contract. For the reasons described below, Sedam's motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.
Rule 7.1(B)(1) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois provides that "[e]very motion raising a question of law... must include a memorandum of law including a brief statement of the specific points or propositions of law and supporting authorities upon which the moving party relies, and identifying the Rule under which the motion is filed." Local Rule §7.1(B)(1). Here, Sedam fails to include a memorandum of law or provide any legal authority to support his argument. For example, Sedam simply asserts that "[t]he failure of the plaintiffs to secure the signature of the attorney as mandated by the document it drafted and prepared constitutes an omission of an essential element of the contract thereby rendering it unenforceable." ECF No. 8. This does not comply with our Local Rules.
Sedam failed to follow the Local Rules for the Central District of Illinois by not including a memorandum of law. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, is DENIED without prejudice.