TM

Minute Order Formn (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01. C2919 DATE 9/26/2001
CASE Cement Masons Pension Fund vs. King & Larsen, Inc.
TITLE

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

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(0) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

@) g Answer briefto motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon_____setfor___—_at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__—_at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor__—sat__—
7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___—_at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) General Rule21 OFRCP4i(a)\(1) OO FRCP4i(a)(2).

(0) =x [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Defendant’s answer is hereby stricken with leave
granted to file the required Amended Answer in this Court’s chambers on or before October 5, 2001.
Gi) gf [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
[| No notices required.
WY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
9126/2001

date mailed notice
courtroom

SN deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office



on,

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

CEMENT MASONS PENSION FUND,
LOCAL 502, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 01 C 2919

KING & LARSEN, INC., etc.,

CNET ED
SEP 27 2001

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
M.A. King Construction, Inc. and King & Larsen Construction,
Inc. have filed what purports to be their Answer to the Amended
Complaint brought against them by several employee benefit funds
(collectively “Funds”) suing under ERISA. This memorandum order
is issued sua sponte to strike that pleading because of its basic

flaws and to require the prompt filing of a self-contained

aN

Amended Answer. ‘
To begin with, defense counsel has the bizarre notion
(unfortunately shared by more than a few lawyers) that if any of

a plaintiff's allegations amounts to a legal conclusion, no
answer is required to the assertedly defective allegation. That

is dead wrong--see App. 92 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. I11. 2001). Because every
paragraph of the Answer relies in whole or in part on that
mistaken notion, every one must be and is trashed.

As long as defense counsel must return to the drawing board

in any event, the Amended Answer must also conform to this


a

District Court's LR 10.1, which requires every responsive
pleading to set out each allegation being responded to (a
requirement most often, though not always, satisfied by an in
haec verba repetition of those allegations), followed by each
responding paragraph. That requirement has as its obvious
purpose the reader's ability to see precisely what is and what is
not being put in issue without having to flip back and forth
between two separate pleadings.

Defense counsel are ordered to file the required Amended
Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course being
transmitted to Funds' counsel) on or before October 5, 2001. No
charge is to be made to defendants by their counsel for the added
work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own errors.
Defense counsel are ordered to 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).

Cea lle. DEanoten

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: September 26, 2001