Minute Order Form (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

Milton I. Shadur
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

01 C 7627 DATE 10/26/2001

CASE Abelardo Perez vs. Bank of Montreal
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, c.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party pka and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

Mail AO 450 form,

(a) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) a) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
6 oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) im] [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OrrcP4(m) OC General Rule2! [I FRCP41(a\(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) Wf [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Affirmative defenses 1 through 3are
stricken,

(1) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document

A . Number
No notices required.
umber of notices

Y | Notices mailed by judge's staff,

Notified counse! by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices 5

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

SN

te do

~\
OC} 22 auui
\7

10/26/200)

esi Od far SoU date nmied noticg
courtroom
deputy’s SN
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

railing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ABELARDO PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 01 C 7627

BANK OF MONTREAL,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Bank of Montreal (“Bank”) has filed its Answer to the Title
VII employment discrimination Complaint brought against it by
Abelardo Perez--a claim based on Perez! assertedly having
suffered adverse treatment attributable to his Panamanian
national origin. Although Bank's Answer as such is entirely
straightforward, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte to
address some problematic aspects of what Bank's counsel have
labeled “Additional Defenses to Count I.”
AD 1 is the essential equivalent of a Rule 12(b) (6) motion,
and as such it does not appear to credit Perez' allegations as

gospel (an approach that must also provide him with all

+ Although Bank has followed the lead of Perez' counsel in
veferring to Count I, that usage is puzzling as applied toa
Complaint that advances only a single claim and that is not
divided into separate counts at all, either under the auspices of
Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 10(b) or pursuant to the all-too-common
practice of splintering a single claim into purported counts on
some other basis (whether by theory of recovery or otherwise).
As for Bank's several “additional defenses,” this memorandum
order will test them by the standards for affirmative defenses 4
(“ADs”) under Rule 8(c) and applicable caselaw. Lb


reasonable favorable inferences from his allegations). That
failure is impermissible (see Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.
69, 73 (1984)), and AD 1 is accordingly stricken.

AD 2 has the same flaw, and it too is stricken. It should
be added that if Bank has any predicate to support either of
those challenges in ADs 1 and 2, it must accompany any such
xenewed effort by fleshing out its contentions--for in each
instance Bank's present skeletal assertion of those claimed
defects does not satisfy even the undemanding requirements of
notice pleading.

Finally, AD 3 is also at odds with Perez' allegations, most
specifically Complaint 411. Again the appropriate relief is to

strike AD 3 as well, and this Court so orders.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 26, 2001