Mime Odes oem (087)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton L Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 7256 DATE 1/7/2003
CASE Richard Roe vs. Village of Westmont
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
_I
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motiondue
(3) im Answer brief to motion due___.. Reply to answer brief due__
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___setfor__at
(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetffor___—_at
(6) ia) Pretrial conference[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor_— at.
(op) a Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) CIFRCP41(a)(2).

(10) WW — [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Because of the repeated violations of this Court’s
orders and of the crystal clear provisions of Rule 8(b), SAA 997, 17, 18, 19 and 26 are stricken, and
defendants will be treated as having admitted the allegations of Complaint 7, 17, 18, 19 and 26.
Accordingly AD 2 will remain in the SAA, but.this Court will dismiss the Board from this action on
January 21, 2003 unless plaintiff's counsel were.to file an earlier submission in this Court’s chambers
(with a coy of course being transmitted to defense counsel) explaining why that should not be done.

dl) gf [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. _ Document

No notices required.

Y | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mal AO 430 frm uno Jonista’s'n

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

Cici id L- NYE eu
m eens oi 03-034 a

initials

date maited notice

Date/time received in -
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy inils



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD ROE, )
Plaintiff,
)
v. } No. 02 ¢ 7286 DOCKETED
VILLAGE OF WESTMONT, et al., ) JAN * g 2003
Defendants. }
MEMORANDUM _ ORDER
This is truly hard to believe. Not once but twice (first in
its December 13, 2002 memorandum order and then again in its
January 2, 2003 memorandum order) this Court has expressly told
defense counsel that the responsive pleadings they had just filed
had violated the equally express provisions of the second
sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b) as to the type of
disclaimer that is a precondition. to obtaining the benefit of a
deemed denial of a plaintiff's allegations. Not once but twice
that message was accompanied by this Court's specific citation to
one of its published opinions that has elaborated on that
principle (even though it scarcely needs elaboration, given the
clarity of Rule 8(b)). Yet defense counsel have now filed still
another pleading--the Second Amended Answer (“SAA”)--that repeats
the identical violation in the identical paragraphs.
Enough is enough--in this instance, enough is too much,
Because of the repeated violations of this Court's orders and of

the crystal clear provisions of Rule 8(b), SAA 447, 17, 18, 19


ileal

Miia ocail
‘i 6 ne

and 26 are stricken, and defendants will be treated as having
admitted the allegations of Complaint 447, 17, 18, 19 and 26.

In one respect, however, defense counsel has been
appropriately responsive to a question raised in the January 2
memorandum order. There this Court had inquired as to the thrust
of defendants' Affirmative Defense (“AD”) 2. Defense counsel
have now filed a supplemental brief in that respect, confirming
this Court's inference that the Westmont Board of Fire and Police
Commissioners (“Board”) is not a legal entity, so that the proper
target of plaintiff Richard Roe's allegations is really the
Village of Westmont itself. Because the Village is already a
party defendant, the appropriate. action would appear to be the
Board's dismissal as a party defendant, rather than simply
leaving the matter to be raised as.an AD. Accordingly AD 2 will
remain in the SAA, but this Court will dismiss the Board from
this action on January 21, 2003 unless plaintiff's counsel were
to file an earlier submission in this Court's chambers (with a
copy of course being transmitted to defense counsel) explaining

why that should not be done.

Milton I...Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 7, 2003