Minute Order Fogm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

11 SET P A H  WRNRN ver NRg

fami ign uc ; itt if Other
vie Magistrate Judes Milton I. Shadur “Than Awigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 3187 DATE 9/20/2001
CASE Thomas Flohr vs. Comdisco, Inc., et al
TITLE

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) 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 im Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___at -

(5) oO 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 forlon_____setfor__—_at. _.
(7) o 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) CGeneral Rule 21 CUFRCP41(a)(1) CIERCP41(a)(2).

(0) «xf [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Pontikes’ counsel is granted leave
to file an appropriate amendment to the Answer in this Court’s chambers on or before October 1, 2001.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notices

oY | Notices maited by judge’s staff, SEP 21 200)

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. Ww

docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

snore001
courtroom ate riled notice
SN deputy’s ow
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
THOMAS FLOHR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 01 C 3187

)
COMDISCO, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Nicholas Pontikes ("“Pontikes”) has filed his Answer to
Count VII of the Amended Complaint (“AC”) in this action, the
only count in which Pontikes is targeted as a defendant. Because
some aspects of that responsive pleading are problematic, this
memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address those matters.

To begin with, it is simply wrong to say that a legal
conclusion does not require an answer--see App. §2 to State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill.

2001). Indeed, an allegation as to subject matter jurisdiction
is the quintessential legal conclusion, and there is no question
that a defendant must respond either with an admission or with a
statement as to why jurisdiction is disputed (see, e.g., Form 21
in the Appendix of Forms following Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule”) 86,
which forms are expressly approved in Rule 84). Accordingly the
first sentence in each of Answer q{2 and 3 is stricken.

More substantively, several paragraphs of the Answer fail to

track the plain roadmap marked out by the second sentence of Rule

DOCKETED

SEP 2 1 2001


8(b) as the predicate for a deemed denial: Nothing is said by
Pontikes about his “belief,” which is the ingredient that makes

that provision a demanding one--see App. $1 to State Farm.

Accordingly Answer 9§4, 31, 35 and 41 are stricken, but this time
with leave to amend to provide proper responses.

Finally, all of the Affirmative Defenses (“ADs”) are set out
in the most perfunctory skeletal manner, something that does not
conform even to the minimal requirements of the notice pleading
approach taken by the Rules. Simply parroting a number of the
terms set out in Rule 8(c) will not do. Accordingly all eight of
the ADs are stricken, but again with leave to cure that
deficiency by fleshing out the predicate for each asserted AD.

Pontikes' counsel is granted leave to file an appropriate
amendment to the Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of
course being served on opposing counsel) on or before October 1,
2001. No charge is to be made to Pontikes by his counsel for the

added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own

errors. Pontikes' counsel are ordered to apprise their client to
that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this

Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).

(ell. OG cbocr

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: September 20, 2001