## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3921 G A E T A NO “T OM ” A LI OTO, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. T OW N OF L I S B ON, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:08- cv-752

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 7, 2011

B efore E A S T E RB RO OK, Chie f Judg e, a nd F L A U M an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges. F LAUM, Cir cu i tJudg e . G a e t a n o “ T o m” Al i o t o fi l e d a l aw sui t a gainst W i sco nsi n’s Town o fLi sbo n , its adm i ni str at or , a nd the chi efo fi ts pol i ce depar tm ent. A l i oto m ai ntai ns that, am ong other thi ngs, the defe nd ants def am ed hi m , subj ecte d hi m to a host i l e w or k envi ro nm ent, an d v i o l at ed hi s due pr o cess ri g ht s. Acco r di ngt o the com pla i nt, wh ose well

- ple aded al l ega ti ons w e a ccept a s2 N o. 09

- 3921 tru e, A li oto su ffered politi c a l p ayba ck after he sp earhe a de d a n i nqui r y i nt o a l l e g e dl y un e thi c a l a c t i v i t i es of po l i ce c hi efTe r r y M ar to r an o . The c hi efs ur vi ve d the i nv es ti g at i o n a nd

— alo n g w ith to w n adm i ni str ato r J effr eyM us ch e

— ex ac te d rev en ge on A liot o. T h e d i s t r ict co u rtd ism iss ed th e c as e, an d th e re as on it provi ded f orgr anti ng the m ot ion effecti vel y e l i m i nates A l i oto ’ s chance s o n ap p eal

. W hen the defe nd ants m ove d to dis mi s s the c o mpl a i nt, Al i o t o di d n o tfi l e a r e s po nse b rie f th at m et d efe n d an ts ’ arg u m en ts . In st ea d , h e o n ly sou gh t leave to am en d th e com p lai nt based on th e (inc orre ct) bel i efth at c om pla i nts ne ed to st ate l ega ltheo ri es. T he d is t r ict cou rt did not err w he n it den ied A li oto’s m o ti o n f o r l e a v e t o a me n d ; b y f a i l i n g t o r e s p o n d t o t he ot h er ar gu m en ts th at th e d efe n d an ts h ad ad va n c e d in f av o r o fdi smi ss al, Al i o to wai ve d hi s r i g htt o a ppea lthe di smissa lo r der

. Acco r di ng l y, we affi r m the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I . B a c kg r o und Gaetano A l i oto was a s er gea nt with the T own o f Lisb on Pol i ce Depar tm ent. H e w as seco nd in com m and to p oli ce chief T erry M artoran o. I n 2006, tw o of th e to w n’s supervi sor s a ske d A l i oto to i nvest i gat e the chi ef

. A l i oto w as t a s k e d wi th de t e r mi ningwh e the r Mar t o r a no was defr auding the tow n. In part i cul ar, the questi on was w hetherthel a t t e rwa s “ do ub l e - di pp i ng”

— s u b mi t t i n gt i me sh ee ts to th e t o w n fo r tim e p er iod s w h en h e w as in f act w or ki ng as se curi ty guar d. ( M ar tor ano had t w o j obs as a s ecuri ty guar d, one at a j ew el ryst or e a nd ano therN o. 09

- 3921 3 atCa r r o l lCo l l eg e. ) Upon l ea r ningof t he i nv es ti g at i o n, M ar tor ano w ar ned A l i oto , “[ I ] f you ar e com i ng afte r m e, I am goin g t o ge t y ou .” A li oto ap p ears to ha ve p ressed o n, sub m itti ng a report to the t own i n A pri l20 06. The r epor t m ust hav e i m pli cate d M ar tor ano i n w ro ng d oi ng, bec ause the c hi ef w as p laced on a d m inistrative l eave a few da ys later. Al i o t o wa s ma d e a c t i n g chi e f

. Atth a tp o i n t, th e t o wn h i r e d a n i n d epe n d e n ti n v e s t i g a t o r t o c o n d u c tf o l l o wu p on A liot o’s rep or t. A lth ou gh th e in d ep en d en t in ve st ig a t o r s u b s t a n t i a t e d th e r e p o r t ’ s fi n d i ng s , th e t o wn gave M ar tor ano hi s j ob back

— und erthr ea t ofa l aw sui t, i t s eem s. Aft erres um i nghi s po st, M ar to r an o wor k ed wi ththe town adm i ni str ato r, M usche, to exactr even ge o n A l i oto for th e i n v e s t iga tio n . Som e o f th e a lleg at ion s m ad e in th e c o mp l a i n t a mo u n t t o mi n o r s l i g h t s th a t wo u l d d o l i t t l e t o ma k e o u ta p l a u s ib l e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m f o r c o nst ru c tiv e d isc h ar ge , w h ich is th e t h eo ry A liot o u ltim at ely se tt led on, see Wi t t ev. Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof Cor r e ct i ons , 434 F. 3d 1031 , 10 35 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 6), but o ther s s tar t t o p rovide scaffol d ing for a law su it. A m ong the m ore se r i o us al l eg at i o ns , Al i o to c o nt en ds th atM ar to r an o m ade de f amat o r y s tatem ent s to the pr es s an d l i ed to the dist ri ct a tto rneyi n an e ff or t t o have base l ess cr i m i nal c ha r g es bro ughta g a i ns tAl i o t o . T he e ff o r two r k e d. The D. A. t o l d Al i o to tha t no c ha r ges woul d b e br o ug ht i fh e re signe d and, w hen he r efused, char ged hi m . A ccord in g to the com pla i nt, a sta te j ud ge l ate r dism i sse d the c ase f orwant ofpro babl e ca use.4 N o. 09

- 3921 I n Octobe r 2006 , A l i oto to ok the a dvic e o fhi s per sonal phy s i c i a n ; b e c a u s e o fth e s t r e s s o fth e wo r ke n v i r o nm en t an d a l ltha t att en ded i t, he t o o kmedi ca ll ea ve fr o m the pol i ce depar tm en t. W h en, i n M ay 2007, he wanted to re turn, the to w n re quir ed hi m to subm i t a m edi calr el eas e. A l i oto com pli ed, but M ar tor ano tol d A l i oto th atthe r el ea se was no t su ffi ci en tly “de sc r i pti ve ” an d d em an d ed an ot h er on e. A ga i n A liot o ob lige d , bu t a ga in the defendants would notl et A l i oto ret u rn to work. They i m posed an add i ti onal re quir em ent th at A l i oto und er go a fi tness
- f or - du ty evaluati on bys om eone they se lec te d . Th e e va lu at or ind ica te d th a t A liot o w as n otfit to re turn t o du ty; the l att ernever re turned t o w or k. ( I n Decem ber20 07, the town d i sbande d it s pol i ce depar tment, ha vingde ci ded to c o nt r ac t wi ththe W aukes ha County S heri ff’ s Depart m ent forpol i ce s er vi ces. A l i oto w as n otinv ite d to j oin th at p olic e fo rc e.) Ali o to fi le d hi s l aws ui t i n s ta te c o ur t i n J ul y 2 00 8, a nd th e de f en d a n t s r e mo v e d th e c a s e t o fe d e r a lc o u r tt wo m o nths l at er . The c o m pl ainte sc he ws c hr o no l o g y o r a ny othe r l ogi calba sis o fo rg ani zati on. I t co nsi sts o fl ar ge, n u m b er ed p ar ag ra p h s w h os e la n g u a ge is ra th er d ifficu lt to f ol l ow. N onethel ess , i t m ade the al l ega ti ons outl i ned ab o v e , e v e n i fu n d e r s t a n d i n gth e a l l e g a t i o n s t a k e s s o me effor t, an d de fend an ts d id n ot fi le a m o t ion f or a m ore defini te state m en t o r to have the a l l ega ti ons gr ouped in to co u n ts . (A s t h ey m igh t h av e. See Fed. R. Ci v. P . 1 0( b) & 12(e). ) I n an y even t, t he de fend an ts fi led an sw ers sh o r t l y a fte r th ey rem ov ed th e c as e t o fe d er al c ou rt . In J une 2 00 9, the de fen dan ts fi l ed m o ti o ns t o di smi ss the com pla i nt ( the t own and M u sc he to gether; A l i oto se pa-N o. 09

- 3921 5

ra t e l y ) f o r f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u po n whi c h r e l i efcan b e g r a nt e d. T he de fe nd a nt s s t y l e d the m Ru l e 1 2 ( b) ( 6) m o ti o ns , b uti n reality the mot i o ns wer e f o r j udg m en t on the pl eadi ngs, Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 1 2(c), bec ause the defen d an ts filed an sw er s. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12 ( b ) ( “A m ot i o n a s s e r t i ng a ny o f the s e de fe ns e s mus t b e m a de before plead ing ifa respon sive ple ad ing is all ow ed

. ”); Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12 ( h)( 2) ( B) ( a m oti on f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl aim m ay be br ought i n a Rul e 1 2( c) m oti on)
. The m i sst y l i n g d oe s n otalt er ou r an aly sis
. Se eal s o M cM i l l an v . Co ll ec ti on P rofess ionals Inc. , 4 5 5 F
. 3 d 7 5 4 , 7 5 7 n. 1 ( 7th C ir. 2006). A ccor ding to the b ri efi n supp or t o fthe m oti on fi l ed by th e t own and M usche, A l i oto ’ s co m pla i nt was d efi ci en t atthe o ut se t be ca us e i t di d no t ci te the speci fi c co nsti tuti onalpro vi si ons orri ghts that the defendants we re al l ege d to have vi ol ate d

— th e co m pl aint m er el y i nd i cate d that “ 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 const i tuti onal ri ghts” were vi ol ate d. I n ad d i ti on, the bri efm eas ured th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe a l l eg at i o ns i n the c o m pl aint aga i nst th e sta nd ar ds f orcl ai m s under the F ourt eenth A m endm ent’ s due pro cess cl ause, i ts equal pro tect i on cl ause, t h e F i rs t Am endm ent’ s fre edom o fspeec h cl ause, Tit l e VII o fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct o f19 64, and sev er alst ate
l aw to rt s. Unsur pr i sing l y, the t o wn an d M us ch e f o und th e al l eg at i o ns want i ng, f o r reas o ns tha t th eys pel l ed o ut i n the i r b r i ef

. The y a l so c o nt en d ed tha t, a s to a ny c o nsti tuti onalcl ai m s Ali oto was m aking, M usche was e n t i t l e d t o qu a l i fi e d i mmun i t y a n d th a tth e r e wa s no b a s i s f o r i mpu t i n gS e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 l i ab i l i t y t o th e t o wn un d er M o nell v . D ep’t o f So c. Servs. of th e C ityof N ew Yo rk,6 N o. 09

- 3921 436 U
. S. 65 8 ( 1978 )
. M ar to ra no’ s br i efi n supp or t o f hi s m oti on to dism i ss gener al l y echoe d the substa n c e of hi s co - defe nd ants’ brief. H i s br i ef, to o, m ai ntai ned that, as a pl eadi ng r equi re m ent, “a pl ain tiffi s r equi re d to pinpoi nt the speci fi c co nsti tutional r i ght that was alle ge d ly v iola te d .” S ev er alwee k s afte r the de fen dan ts fi l ed th ei r mot i o ns to dism i ss , A liot o fi l ed an ag re ed m oti on s ett i ng a b riefi ng sc hedu l e. H e r equeste d untilA ugust 6 ( a l i tt le ove r tw o m onths) to fi l e a r esp onse br i ef

. The di str i ct cour t a gr eed . W hen A ugust 6 ar ri ved, however, A l i oto fi l ed a m oti on f orl eave to fi l e a n am en d ed co m pla i nt. The propos ed a m ended com pla i nt i s m uch easi erto f o l l o w tha n the o r i g i na l

. The f o r m eraba ndo ne d a ny cl ai m o fa host i l e workenvi ro nm ent a s wel l a s stat e- l aw to r t cl ai m s. I t adde d a c l ai m f or ov er ti m e wag es a nd al l eg ed a vi o l at iono fhi s r i g htt o fr ee a ss o ci at i o n. In s u p p or t o fhi s m oti on f orl eave to fi l e the am ended c o mp l a i n t, A l i o t o fi l e d a b r i e fs t y l e d , “ P l a i n t i ff’ s C o mbine d Br i efi n S uppo r t o fM otion fo r Le av e to Am en d Pursuant t o F. R. C.P. 7(b) and i n R esp onse to Defendants’ M oti ons to Dism i ss. ” Yet the b ri efdi d l i ttl e t o ad d re ss the defendants’ ar gum ents about the s uffi ci ency of A l i oto ’ s o ri gi nalco m pla i nt. T he br i efspanned j ust o ver fi ve pages and devote d i tse l fal m ostexclu si vel y t o i ts r e qu e st f or l e a v e t o fi l e the a men de d c o mpl a i nt
. Ind e e d, the r esponse br i efr esponde d t o onl y o ne o fthe shor tcom ings th at th e d efe n d a nt s had said m arked A li oto’s co m pl aint

— an d o nl y b y w ay of a n a t- o nc e ta ci t an d incorrect conc ession: “D efend an ts at t a cked plaintiff’s o r i g i na lCo m pl aintf or an a l l eg ed f ai l ur e to c i te a nyN o. 09

- 3921 7

Co nsi st en t w ith our precedent, w e use the w ord w aive, 1 a lth o u g h for fei t is p er h a p s th e m o re ac cu ra te te rm . E.g. , U n i te d S tat es v. C harle s , 47 6 F
. 3d 4 92 , 49 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( ex pl ai ni ng thatw aiver is voluntary w hil e fo rfe itu re i s the res ult ofan u n in te n tio n a l re lin q u ish m en t o f a r ig h t). vi ol ati on of const i tuti onal ri ghts. The pro posed A m ended Com pla i nt speci fi cal l y l i sts tho se const i tuti onalr igh ts whi chpl aint if f all eg es ha ve b ee n v i o l at ed an d ho w the defen dan ts ’ c o nduc t vi o l at ed th o se r i g hts ” ( ci ta ti o ns om i tte d). The non- re sponsi ve resp on se bri efdi d not add re ss the defendants’ ar gum ents about why th e c o mpla i nt’ s a l l ega ti ons f ai l ed to st ate c l ai m s under sta te a n d fe d e r a ll a w. The di st r i ctc our t g r an te d the de fen dan ts ’ mot i o ns to dism i ss and denied Ali oto ’ s m oti on f orleave to am end his co m pla i nt. T h e d i str i ct c ourtnot ed that A l i oto so u gh t leave t o am end his co m pla i nt wellafter th e dea dl i ne se t o uti n the c o ur t’ s sc he dul i ngo r dera nd rul ed that A l i oto had not est abl i shed go od cause under Rule 16(b) f orl eave to m odi fy the sc hedu l i ng o rder an d am e n d t h e com p lai nt
. In ad d iti on, the d istri ct cou rt rul ed that A l i oto f or fei ted hi s o p portunity t o oppose 1 th e defen dan ts ’ mot i o ns t o di smi ss b y f ail ing t o r es po nd to the a rgum ents i n supp or t o ftho se m oti ons.

I I . Discussi on The dis tr i ct c ourtco rr ectly r ule d that A l i oto was r e q u i r e d t o s h o w g o o d c a u s e i n o r d e r t o a men d hi s c o m-8 N o. 09

- 3921 pl aint; the c o ur t di d no t abus e i ts di sc r et i o n in c o nc lu d in g t h at A liot o fa iled to m ee t t h at st an d ar d

. See Wol l e nb urg v . Com t e ch M f g. Co. , 2 0 1 F
. 3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 0 )
. A s t o th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s th e c o mpl a i nt, Al i o t o wa i v e d h i s r i g htt o c o nt e s tthe di s m i ssa l b y fa ilin g t o op p os e t h e m ot i on s. See Lek a s v. B riley, 405 F.3d 602, 614 (7th Cir. 2005).

A. Al i o t o ’ s Mot i o n f o rL e a v e t o Ame nd G en er ally , a m ot ion for lea ve to am en d a c om p lain t is evalu at e d un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 15(a)( 2). That r ule pro vi des thatco urts “s houl d fr eel y g i ve l e a v e wh e n j us t i c e s o r e qu i r e s . ” S ee a ls o Soltys v. C oste ll o , 52 0 F
. 3d 73 7, 742

- 43 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( di sc us singthe s ta nda r d)

. H o wev er, the r ul e i s i n s o m e te ns i o n wi ththe rul e that g ove rns scheduling o rder s, Fe d er alRule o f Ci vi lPr o ce dur e 16
. Underthe r ul e, di st r i ctc o ur ts are ge n e r a lly re q u ire d to iss u e s c h ed u lin g or d er s in th eir case s as soon as prac ticable. Fed

. R . C iv. P. 16(b)(2). A nd co urts ar e r equi re d i n a s cheduli ng o rder t o set a deadli ne f or fi l i ng am ended p l eadi ngs. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 16(b )( 3) ( A )
. In thi s ca se, the dist ri ct c ourtr ead i ts scheduling o rderas r equi ring am ended p l eadi ngs t o be fi l ed by the e nd o fN ove m ber20 08. A l i oto does not qu estion th at int erp retation. Th erefore, the d istri ct cou rt w as enti tl ed to applythe hei ghtene d goo d-cause stand ar d ofRule 16 ( b) ( 4) befor e co nsi deri ng wh ether th e r equi r ement s o fRul e 15 ( a) ( 2) wer e s at i sfi ed. W e put t h e im p rim at u r on th at ap p ro ac h in o u r d ec isio n in Tr u s t ma rkIn s . C o . v . G e n e r al & Co l o g n eL i f eR eo f A m. ,N o. 09

- 3921 9 424 F. 3d 542, 55 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ). The two- ste p proce ss i s co nsistent with near l y e ver y o ne o fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts (an d ou t o f st ep w ith n o n e). SeeO ’Co nnellv. Hyatt Hotel s of Puert o R ico , 35 7 F
. 3d 152, 15 4- 55 ( 1stCi r. 20 04 ); P a rker v . C o lum bia P ictu res Indu s. , 204 F.3d 326 , 340 (2d Cir. 20 00 ); RaceTires A m ., Inc . v. Hoos i e rRaci ng TireCorp. , 61 4 F. 3d 57, 84 ( 3d Cir

. 201 0); N our i s on Rug Corp. v. Par vizi an , 53 5 F .3d 29 5, 29 8 (4 th C i r. 20 08 ); S& W Ent e rs . , LL C v. S o u t h Tr u s tB a n ko

f A l a b a ma, NA , 31 5 F
. 3d 533, 5 36 ( 5th C ir . 2 0 03 ); Lea ry v . D a eschn er, 349 F.3d 888 , 909 (6th C ir. 20 03 ); M or r i s on Ente rs . , LLC v . D r avo Corp
. , 63 8 F
. 3d 594, 6 1 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 11 ); Cole m an v. Q uake rO at s Co. , 23 2 F
. 3d 12 71 , 129 4 (9 th C ir. 20 00 ); Sosa A irprintSys. , Inc. , 13 3 F
. 3d 14 17, 141 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 98 ) (p er c u ria m ); see also U nited St at e s ex re l
. Ri t ch i ev. Lo ckhe e d M ar t i n Corp. , 55 8 F
. 3d 1161 , 1166 (10th Cir. 2009) (r eserving th e issue of w he th er, once a s cheduli ng o rd erhas been enter ed, Rule 16 ap p li es before the stan d ard s of R ule 15 are con side red ). The distr ict co urt did notdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on i n concl ud i ng tha t Ali oto f ai l ed to es tabli sh g ood cause f orm odi fyi ng the sche du l i ng ord er . In m aking a Rul e 1 6 ( b ) g o o d

- c a u s e d e t e r mi n a t i o n, th e p r i ma r y c o nsi der at i o n fo r di st r i ct cou rts i s th e di l i g en ce o fthe p ar ty se ek in g a m en d m en t. Trustm a rk, 42 4 F
. 3d at 55 3; s e eal s o 3 M O O RE ’ S F EDERAL P RACT I CE § 16. 14[1][b], at 16- 72 ( M atthew Bender 3 d ed. 2010) ( “[ A ] l though undo ubt edly the r e ar e di ffer en ce s o fv i ews a m o ng dist ri ct j ud ges abo ut how co m pel l i ng a showing m ust be to j us ti fy e xt en di ngthe d ea dl i ne s se t i n s ch edu l i ng or ders, i t see m s c learthatthe f acto r on wh i ch co urts ar e m ostl i kel y t o foc u s when m aking thi s dete rm i nati on10 N o. 09

- 3921 i s th e r el at i ve di l i g en ce of the l awy ero r l awy er s who see k the c hange. ”)
. A l i oto o ffer s a n i nsuffi ci entl y r obust ex p lan at ion of w h y h e w as d ilige n t. H e a rg u es ch iefly that he had no re aso n to know that hi s com pla in t w as defi ci ent u n tilthe defe nd ants fi l ed thei r m oti ons to d ism iss th e c om p lain t. That expl anati on does notpass m u st er . The r equi re m ents f orsur vi vi ng a m oti on t o dism i ss ar e m att er s o f hor nbookcivil p ro cedure l aw , and a par ty shoul d al w ays as ki ts el fwhethe r the c o m pl ainti t want s to f il e s et s o ut a vi ab l e cl ai m . ( I fthe pa r tydoe s no t do s o o n i ts o wn, i ts l aw yeri s r equi re d to askthatquesti on. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 11 ( b) ( 2)
. ) M o r eo ve r, Al i o to a ct ed wi thi ns uffi ci en t dil i gence notm er el y b ecause he wa ite d t o see k l eave to am end fo r m or e than ei ght m onths beyo nd the dist ri ct cour t’ s deadl i ne. H e wai ted until t h e la st day

— und er a gen er ou s brie fi n g s c h ed u le

— f orfi l i ng a re sponse to the defendants’ m oti on t o dism i ss. Ind eed , he had defen d an ts’ m oti ons to dism i ss i n hi s pos ses si on f or m o r e th ant wo months b efo r e seeki ng l ea ve t o a m en d the c om pla i nt. A s the 19 83 advi sory c om m i tte e no te ex pl ains , a m o ngthe a i m s o fRul e 16 a re t o pr ev en t parti e s fr o m de l a y i ngo r p r o c r a s t i na t i nga nd t o k e ep the c ase “m oving to w ar d tr i al

. ” Altho ugh the l ack of cl ar i ty i n the com pla i nt m ade i t di ffi c u lt t o perce i ve preci se ly w hat Ali oto was al l eging, the propos ed amende d c o m p lai nt a dded atl ea sto ne ne w the o r y a nd o ve r ha ul ed an o th er . In li g hto fAl i o to ’ s co nduc t an d the purpos es ofRule 16 , the d istri ct c ourtco m m i tte d n o a b u se of its d isc re tio n in d en yin g lea ve to am en d

. See East e r n M i ne r al s & Che m s . Co. v. M ahan , 22 5 F
. 3d 330,N o. 09

- 3921 11 34 0 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 0) ( di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t err i n de ny i ng le av e to amend co m pl aint wher e pl aint i ff wai te d m ore th an six m ont hs after the sch ed uling ord er cu toff)

.
B. Defe nd ants’M ot i ons t o Dismiss N orm all y, w e review w ithou t d eferenc e a district cou rt’s concl usi on that a c om p l ai nt f ai l s t o sta te a cl ai m upon w h ich relie f ca n be gra n te d

. Heyd e v. P itteng er, 63 3 F
. 3d 512, 5 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. In thi s ca se, however, A l i oto f ai l ed to m eetthe m yr i ad ar gum ents seto ut i n the defen dan ts ’ mot i o ns t o di smi ss . Ins te ad, Al i o to s o ug ht leav e t o am end his co m pla i nt and r esponded (b y way o f co nc es si o n) to o nl y o ne o f th e defen dants’ arg um ents

— thei r i ncor re ct pos i ti on th at a co m pla i nt m ust se t o u t s p ec ific p ro vis ion s t h at h a v e be en vio lat ed . A lthough a c ou rtm ay re quir e that a l l ega ti ons be g ro up ed i nto log i ca lc o unt s f o r c l ai m s th ata r e “fo unde d o n” s ep ar at e t ra n sa c tio n s o r oc c u rre n c es , see F e d. R. Ci v. P. 10 ( b) , we have s tat ed re peatedl y ( and fr equentl y) that a co m pla i nt nee d not pl ead lega ltheo ri es, wh i ch can b e le ar n ed d u rin g d isc ov er y. E.g
. , Sm i t h v. M e d. B ene fi t A dm ’rs G roup, Inc. , 63 9 F
. 3d 277, 28 3 n. 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ); Jo s ep h v . El a n Mot o rs p o r t s Te c h s . R a c i n gCorp. , 63 8 F .3d 55 5, 56 1-6 2 (7 th C i r . 2 01 1); R abe v. U nite d Air Lines, Inc. , 6 3 6 F
. 3 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ A c o mpl aintne ed no t i den ti fy l eg althe o r i es , a nd s pec i fy i ng an i nc orrect legal th eory is nota f atal error. ”). I n a nye v e nt, b e c a us e the di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n o tabuse i ts disc re ti on in d en ying A l i oto ’ s m oti on f orl eave to amend, the b r i efi ngg ambi t o fs ee k i ngth at l ea ve wi th

-12 N o. 09

- 3921 out add re ssing the defendants ’ pri nci pal ar gum ents und er m i ned A l i oto ’ s appeal bef or e i t w as fi l ed . L ongsta nd i ng under our c ase l aw i s the r ule thata perso n wai ves ana r g um en t byf ai l i ngt o make i t be f o r e th e d is tr ict co u rt
. E.g
. , E ver road v. Scott Truck Sys
. , Inc. , 60 4 F.3 d 47 1, 48 0 (7th C i r . 2 01 0); Taube nf e l d v
. AO NCorp. , 415 F. 3d 597, 59 9 ( 7th C ir. 20 05) ( ci ti ng Hel le r v. E quit able L i f eAs s u r an c eS oc ’y, 8 33 F.2d 12 53, 1261-62 (7th C ir. 1987 ) )
. W e a pp l y tha t r ul e whe r e a pa r t y f a i l s t o d e v e l o p a r g u me n t s r e l a t e d to a d i s c r e t e i s s u e , a n d we al so a ppl y tha t rule w he r e a l i ti g an t effec ti ve l y aba ndo ns the l itig at i on bynotr espondi ng to al l ege d defi ci enci es ina m ot ion to d ism iss
. Se eLekas , 405 F. 3d at 614 ( no tingtha t a com p lai ntmay be c o m pl i an t wi ththe noti ce pl eadi ng r equi re m ents of R u le 8( a) ( 2) and ye t be subj ect to dism i ssa lwh er e a pl ai nti ffdoes notfi l e a brief su p p orting th e legalad eq ua cy of the com p la in t ); Farnham v. Windle, 918 F.2d 47, 51 (7th Cir. 1990). M oreover, as i n Bon t ev . U. S
. Ba n k, N. A. , 62 4 F
. 3d 46 1, 46 6- 67 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) , A liot o double d dow n on hi s wai verby f ai l i ngt o g r appl e o n a ppea lwi ththa t as pec t o fthe d istri ct cou rt’s order. A s we have note d prev iou sly, “Our s yst em o fj usti ce i s a dvers ar i al, and ourj ud ges ar e b u sy peopl e. I fthey a r e g i v e n p l a u s ib l e r e a s o n s f o r d i s mi s s i n ga c o mpla i nt, theyar e no t g oi ng to do the pl ai nti ff’ s r ese ar ch an d t r y to di sc o ve r whethe r the r e m i g htb e so m ethi ng to say a ga in st the defendants’ r eas oni ng. ” K irksey v. R
. J. Rey n o l d s To b a c c o Co. , 1 68 F. 3d 1039 , 10 41 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) (l ikening a d ism issal of a “n onre s p ons ive respon se brief” to defa ultj ud gm ent)
. I t would have bee n f arwise r f orN o. 09

- 3921 13 A l i oto to have r esponde d t o the defendants’ ar gum ents w h ile ex p lain in g w h y, if th e c ou rtd id n otac c e p t h is co nt en ti o ns , a ny di smi ss alshou l d ha ve b ee n wi th o ut prej ud i ce. H e di d not do so. Altho ug h Al i o to c i te s two c as es i n s uppo r t o f h is a r g um en t t h at “a m ot ion for lea ve t o a m en d [an ] alleg ed ly defi ci ent c om pla i nt i s a n appropria te re sponse to a m oti on t o dism i ss f or fa ilu re to st ate a cl ai m , ” the cas es he ci tes do no t su pp or t the pro posi ti on he advances. T he case of Ell i ot tv. Fo uf as , 86 7 F
. 2d 87 7, 88 3 (5th C ir. 1989 ) , m er el y re m anded a case and in the pr oc ess dir ecte d a dist ri ct cour t to consi der a m oti on f or leave t o a men d the com pl a i nt
. And M a yes v . Leipz iger, 72 9 F
. 2d 60 5, 607- 08 ( 9th Ci r. 19 84) , deal t with an am endm ent a s a m atter of ri gh t u n d e r F ed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 15( a) ( 1)
. Our ca se l aw , to o, m ake s cl ea r that a m oti on t o di smi ss unde r Rul e 12 ( b) (6) is no t a r es po ns i ve pl ea di ng an d so , i f an an sw er h as n otbe en file d , a p l a in tiff or d inari l y r eta i ns the abi l i ty t o am end his co m pla i nt o nce as a m att ero fr i ght, ev en aftera cour t g ra nts a m oti on t o d ism i ss. Foste r v. D eLuca , 545 F.3d 582 , 583-84 (7th C ir. 2008 )
. A s w e no ted abo ve, however, the defe nd ants fi led th eir m otion s t o dism iss un d er Ru le 12(c)

. A ns w ers ha d b ee n fi l ed an d the ti m e f o r a m en di ngthe c o m pl aint as a m at te r of rig h t h ad lon g s in c e p as se d

. M ayes d oes no t sa y tha t fi l i nga no n- r es po ns i ve r es po ns e br i efa l o ng w i th a m oti on t o am end i s a n “appropri ate ” r esponse to a m oti on t o dism i ss. Giv en th at A l i oto no l onge r re ta in ed th e r i g h t t o a m en d h is c om p lain t, t heappropr i ate r es po ns e to the mot i o ns t o dism is s was t o o ppo se the m o ti o ns o r r i skaba ndo ni ngthe l i ti g at i o n.14 N o. 09

- 3921 Fi nal l y, we note that our fi n d in g o fwaive r i s no t al ter ed by the f ac t th at the di str i ct c ourtfi rs t co ncl ud ed that A l i oto h ad fo rfe i ted hi s r i ght t o re spond and then expla i ned i ts vi ew o fwh y the co m p laint w as nonethel ess defi ci ent. So m e of the re aso ni ng offer ed by the d i str i ct cour t was i ncor re ct, and A l i oto m i ght ha ve m ade a stron g argu m en t for a d ue p rocess claim in p a r t ic ular. Se e Fi nc h v. H ugh e s Air cra ft Co. , 9 2 6 F
. 2 d 1 5 74 , 1 5 7 7( F e d. Cir
. 19 91) ( rul i ng tha t a pl ai n ti ffl osthi s r i ght t o conte st dism i ssa lev en wh er e the di str i ct c ou rt d id not r el y o n a w aiv ertheo ry )
. To b e s ure, o ur r ule s o n w ai verl eave u s d isc re tio n to ex c u se m ish ap s, s e e, e . g. , Je nkin s v. Ne l s on , 157 F. 3d 485, 49 4 n. 1 ( 7t h Ci r. 19 98) , but thi s a pp ealdoes not w arran t an act of grace. I t is not m erely th at a c ou rt “depend [ s] upon counselto appris e [i t] o fthe i ssues f ordeci si on . ” Libe r tyvi l l eD at s un Sal e s , Inc . v. N i s s an M ot orCo rp. i n U. S
. A. , 776 F.2d 735 , 737 (7th C ir. 1985). Ra th er, o urs y st em o fl i ti g at i o n i s pr emi se d upo n the n ot ion th at law ye rs , th ro u gh th ei r p ar tic ip at ion, w ill en h an c e t h e q u alit y of t h e u ltim at e jud icia l p ro d u c t. E .g., E d w ar d H . L ev i, A N I NT R OD U CT I ON T O L EGAL R EA S ONI NG 5 ( 194 9 )
. Ou r r ul e s o n wa i v e r e nc o ur a g e pa r t i e s to pla y thei r cri ti calr ol e. M or eov er, al l ow in g l i ti gants to op t o u t o f th e a d ve rs ar ial sy st em u n t i l ap p ea l w ou ld run ag ai nst the i nsti nct o fo ur j ud i ci alsy ste m to r eso l ve m att er s a t the tr i alphase and avoid u n n eces sar y r em an d s. E
. g., M cLis h v. R off , 141 U
. S. 661, 665 -6 6 (1 891). Ali oto ha s no t ar g ue d why hi s f ai l ur e to fi l e a r es po nsi ve b r i efs ho ul d be ex cus ed. Pa r ti cul ar l y g i ve n tha t he h as be en rep r e s e n t e d by co u n se l atall tim es , w e w ill n o tma k e a n a r g u me n tf o r h i m.N o. 09

- 3921 15 I I I . Concl usio n F o r th e r ea so ns se t f o r th ab o ve , th e j udg m en t of th e dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

7- 7- 11