Again no such denial is permissible.

4. Answer 99 inexplicably denies a direct quotation by
Broadmark from the language of Agreement q2. What has been
said before applies with equal force here.

5. Answer §14 denies an allegation that is also drawn
directly from Answer qi.a. Once more no such denial can be
countenanced.

As if all this were not enough (or more than enough), each
of the Answer’s several Affirmative Defenses (“ADs”) is also
problematic. Only a brief explanation is required to demonstrate
that:

1. AD 1, which is the equivalent of a Rule 12 (b) (6)
motion, must be and is stricken. When Broadmark’s
allegations are accepted as true, as they must be for
purposes of both Rule 12(b) (6) and Rule 8(c) (in the latter

respect, see App. q5 of State Farm), Broadmark has certainly

stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. AD 2 asserts without further explanation that
Broadmark has “failfed] to satisfy a condition precedent.”
That may or may not be so, but it is impossible to tell
without further elaboration. Even under the generous regime
of notice pleading that applies to federal litigation,
GlobalNet’s conclusory assertion is inadequate. AD 2 is

therefore also stricken, but in this instance with leave


Even if GlobalNet’s counsel were to attempt to excuse
the just-discussed violations as reflecting mere carelessness or
something of the sort (an effort that would not suffice by
way of justification in any event), no such potential
excusability could apply to the clearly improper manner with
which GlobalNet has addressed the Complaint’s substantive
allegations. Complaint Ex. 1 is a photocopy of a four-plus page
single spaced December 18, 2000 letter agreement signed by the
parties (“Agreement”) . Each of GlobalNet’s purported responses
to the Complaint’s allegations about the terms of the Agreement
comprises a flat denial coupled with the statement that GlobalNet
“respectfully refers the Court to the alleged agreement dated
December 18, 2000 for the contents thereof.” This Court has
accepted GlobalNet’s invitation to do so, and it finds that each
such denial is a model of dissimulation:

1. Answer 96 denies GlobalNet’s entry into the
Agreement and its attachment as Complaint Ex. 1. Just how
that can be done in good conscience is a total mystery.

2. Answer 47 denies allegations of the Complaint that
are drawn expressly from Agreement qi and from the
Agreement’s definition of “Services.” That denial too must
be seen as wholly frivolous.

3. Answer 98 denies allegations by Broadmark that are

drawn expressly from the provisions of Agreement qi.a.


granted to include a comparable but properly fleshed-out AD
as part of the amended pleading hereafter required by this
order.

3. AD 3 is subject to the same defect as AD 2, and
the same order applies. Indeed, amplification of AD 3 is
particularly needed to explain how a claimed Statute of
Frauds defense applies to a claim based (as here) ona
written agreement.

4. AD 4 leaves this Court very much in the dark. In
light of the nature of Broadmark’s claim, it is difficult to
see how mitigation of damages can enter into the equation at
all. Accordingly AD 4 is also stricken, again with leave to
file an amplified AD as part of the amended pleading.

Conclusion

In candor, no lawyer ought to have submitted the type of

pleading that has been advanced on GlobalNet’s behalf here. As a

starter, the present pleading is stricken in its entirety, with

leave granted to GlobalNet’s counsel to file a self-contained

amended responsive pleading i

n this Court’s chambers (with a copy

of course sent to opposing counsel) on or before July 22, 2001.

In addition, GlobalNet’s counsel are ordered to send a copy of

this opinion to their client, together with a letter advising

that counsel will make no charge to GlobalNet for the added work

and expense incurred in correcting counsel’s own errors (with a


i

Minute Onder Form (06/95,

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judi i jtting Judge i
te Gongrte Jude Milton 1. Shadur Se ced Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 3855 DATE 7/11/2001
CASE Broadmark Capital vs. Globalnet, Inc.
TITLE a

of the motion being presented.)

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

@) Oo Answer brief to motion due___- Reply to answer. brief due,

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on _ set for att

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on ___ setfor ss at___-
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on __. set for at

7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

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

CFRCP4(m) CGeneral Rule21 C1 FRCPAI(a)(1) D FRCPA1(a)(2).

hearing in this action.

ao) (Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. GlobalNet’s Answer is stricken in
its entirety, with leave granted to counsel to file a self-contained amended responsive pleading in this
Court’s chambers (with a copy of course sent to opposing counsel) on or before July 22, 2001. Finally,
the possibility of considering any further sanction because of the Rule-violative original pleading will
depend on whatever explanation GlobalNet’s counsel may offer at the previously scheduled July 12 status

ql) i | [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required, number of notices
a | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. .
Docketing to mail notices.
| sain ® =
Mail AO 450 form, eukor i docked Dude Totals
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. : wes -
and
r :
GIVUL 11 Pi 4 09 dase malted de
courtroom
SN deputy’s sx
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



copy of that letter also being delivered to this Court’s chambers
as an informational matter, not for filing). Finally, the
possibility of considering any further sanction because

of the Rule-violative original pleading will depend on

whatever explanation GlobalNet’s counsel may offer at the

previously scheduled July 12 status hearing in this action.

Ve tn. Cora

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 11, 2001


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

BROADMARK CAPITAL CORPORATION,

)
INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 01 C 3855
Up
GLOBALNET, INC., ) “q Mop,
22,0
Defendant. )

Yy,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GlobalNet, Inc. (*GlobalNet”) has filed a responsive
pleading--an Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses--that
purports to respond to the Complaint brought against GlobalNet by
Broadmark Capital Corporation, Inc. (“Broadmark”). Because that
filing has flouted several of the most fundamental requirements
of federal pleading, this memorandum opinion and order is issued
sua sponte to strike that response and to order GlobalNet’s
counsel to return to the drawing board to submit a proper
pleading in its place.

To begin with, both Answer qq4 and 5 characterize the
corresponding provisions of the Complaint as “call[ing] for a
legal conclusion to which no response is necessary.” That is

flat-out wrong--see App. q2 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. Vv.

Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). But that violation
of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b) is just the beginning and not
the end of the improper handling that is reflected in GlobalNet's

response to those Complaint paragraphs, for in both instances the


Answer goes on to deny “each and every allegation set forth in
paragraph -- of the Complaint” if a response is found necessary.
Those denials cannot withstand analysis:

1. As to Complaint §4, there is no earthly way in
which GlobalNet can deny the existence of the jurisdictional
amount in controversy (which is of course not a function of
whether Broadmark’s claim will succeed, but rather requires
only that the controversy involves more than $75,000). So
that denial plainly cannot be put forward in the objective
good faith required of every federal pleader under Rule
11(b)--and even worse, such denial cannot be advanced in
subjective good faith either.

2. As for the jurisdictional allegation contained in
the first sentence of Complaint 44, again a denial is
impermissible under the circumstances. Given GlobalNet’s
permissible Rule 8(b) disclaimer of the Complaint’s
allegations as to Broadmark’s corporate citizenship (Answer
q2), the most that GlobalNet’s lawyer can do in good
conscience is to state a comparable disclaimer as to
Complaint q4's first sentence.

3. If anything, Answer (5 is worse. In light of what
GlobalNet has admitted in the last sentence of that
paragraph, it simply cannot deny the venue allegations of

Complaint 45.