UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RICHARD W. KLATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SOUTH BEND,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1768

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

The City of South Bend (“the City”)1 responds to the Amended Complaint 

filed by Richard W. Klatt (“Klatt”) as follows:

General Denial

According to Rule 8(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the City 

generally denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint, except that the City 

admits officers of its police force investigated an incident involving Klatt on or about 

August 1, 2012.

 

1 The actual caption of Klatt’s Amended Complaint names “Mayor, Pete Buttigieg City of 

South Bend, Ind.,” and the Court’s online docket identifies “Pete Buttigieg, Mayor City of 

South Bend Ind” as a Defendant. However, the Summons that accompanied the Amended 

Complaint lists “City of South Bend” in the caption, and this Court’s order of November 24, 

2014 granted Klatt leave to amend his complaint to “include the City of South Bend as a 

party.” [DE 3 at 4]. In fact, the Court’s order even mentions serving amended pleadings 

“on the Mayor of South Bend.” Id. at 5. Further, none of the factual allegations in the 

Amended Complaint refer to the mayor by name or allege any individual actions on his 

part. Under the circumstances, and given the obligation to construe pleadings so as to do 

justice, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e), the City interprets the reference to Mayor Pete Buttigieg as 

merely identifying an agent for service of process against the City. As it understands 

Klatt’s Amended Complaint, no claims are pending against Mr. Buttigieg individually.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01768-PPS document 9 filed 07/23/15 page 1 of 3
2

Additional Defenses

1. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.

2. Subject to further investigation and discovery, Klatt may have failed 

reasonably to mitigate his alleged damages.

3. Klatt’s claims may be barred or limited as untimely because, among 

other things, he did not timely serve the City with a tort claims notice and did not 

properly assert claims against the City in this Court until more than two years after 

the events alleged in the Complaint.

4. Klatt’s claims are barred by Monell v. Dep’t of Social Svcs of New York, 

436 U.S. 658 (1978) because, among other things, Klatt has failed to allege any 

deprivation of rights resulting from an official policy or custom.

5. Klatt’s claims, including, specifically, his claims for punitive damages, 

may be barred or limited by a qualified, absolute, or sovereign immunity.

6. Due to the narrative and somewhat unclear nature of Klatt’s

allegations, subsequent investigation and discovery may reveal other defenses. The 

City reserves the right to assert additional defenses, as warranted by ongoing 

investigation and discovery.

THEREFORE, the City respectfully requests the Court to enter judgement in its 

favor, dismissing the Amended Complaint, assessing costs against Klatt, and 

granting all other appropriate relief.

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01768-PPS document 9 filed 07/23/15 page 2 of 3
3

Jury Demand

Defendant respectfully requests trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Michael J. Hays

Michael J. Hays (#23606-71)

Elizabeth A. Klesmith (#32035-71)

TUESLEY HALL KONOPA, LLP

212 E. LaSalle Avenue

South Bend, IN 46617

(574) 232-3538

mhays@thklaw.com

Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 23, 2015, a copy of this document was served via 

United States first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Mr. Richard W. Klatt

c/o Tina Baker

9387 U.S. Hwy 31, Lot 67

Berrien Springs, MI 40103

 /s/ Michael J. Hays

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01768-PPS document 9 filed 07/23/15 page 3 of 3