IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 887

)

TRINITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, )

L.P., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This action has come to the calendar of this Court by random

assignment after the untimely death of its friend and former

colleague Honorable William Hibbler. When this Court’s

consequent review of the docket reflected that two of the

pleadings were not part of Judge Hibbler’s chambers file, this

Court’s minute clerk printed out copies of the missing documents. 

This Court’s review of those pleadings has revealed defects in

the Answer filed by defendants Trinity Management Associates,

L.P. and three individual codefendants, and those errors have

triggered this sua sponte memorandum order.

For one thing, the several paragraphs that seek to invoke

the disclaimer provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5)--

Answer ¶¶7, 12, 15, 19, 39 and 47--inexplicably depart from the

plainly-marked-out roadmap prescribed by that rule. Then, as if

to compound that error, each of those paragraphs impermissibly

goes on to say “therefore deny the same.” That is of course

oxymoronic--how can a party that asserts (presumably in good

Case: 1:12-cv-00887 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/26/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:219
faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as

to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it in

accordance with Rule 11(b)? Accordingly the quoted phrase is

stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.

Next, Answer ¶¶22, 24, 38, 42, 46 and 50 fail to provide

responses to the corresponding allegations of the Complaint, as

required by Rule 8(b)(1)(B), on the premise that those

allegations “contain a legal conclusion and not a fact.” That

notion is misguided--see App’x ¶2 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Accordingly

defendants cannot simply deny those Complaint allegations.

Finally, it appears that the Answer has overused the tactic

of repeated denials in some other respects. Just to choose a

single example, it is difficult to square the flat-out denial in

Answer ¶21 with the express terms of the Guaranty that is part of

Complaint Ex. C.1

Accordingly the existing Answer is stricken in its entirety,

but with leave granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer on

or before May 14, 2012. No charge is to be made to defendants by

their counsel for the added work and expense incurred in

correcting counsel’s errors. Defendants’ counsel are ordered to

 What is said in the text is merely exemplary. When 1

defense counsel return to the drawing board as they must, they

will be expected to limit outright denials to allegations that

really call for such a response.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00887 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/26/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:220
apprise their clients to that effect by letter, with a copy to be

transmitted to this Court’s chambers as an informational matter

(not for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 26, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00887 Document #: 35 Filed: 04/26/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:221