~

a

‘Mimite Grder Form (06/97) C
United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois .
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 5125 DATE 10/17/2001
. |
CASE Kelly Lait vs. Jerome P. Genova ete. et al. |
TITLE |
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
60) 0 Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due
@) Q Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) gq Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for} on set for at
(6) a Pretrial conference(held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) im Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) 0 [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
GOFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 CHFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
qo) «of [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant Rosemaria Genova’s
motion for judgment on pleadings is denied. We also grant plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative
defenses 1-4 and 7-12, with leave to replead with 21 days. Status hearing set for November 20, 2001 at
9:45am.
(il) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order,]

No notices required, advised in open court,

‘No notices required. number of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

vo | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. docketing deputy initiats

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom
WAH deputy's
initials

Date/time received in ; 7
central Clerk's Office maiting deputy initiats



4

i’

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

EASTERN DIVISION

KELLY LAIT, )
)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 01 C 5125

)

JEROME P. GENOVA, both in his )
individual capacity and in his capacity)
as Mayor of the City of Calumet City, )
Illinois; CITY OF CALUMET CITY, an )
Illinois municipal corporation; et al., )
)

Defendants, )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff sues various officials of Calumet City, claiming that they misused him in
various ways because he provided an affidavit for police officers suing defendant Jerome P.
Genova, the mayor, and he cooperated with a federal investigation of Genova. In one count
of the complaint, count XI, he alleges that he was renting residential property from Genova
and his wife Rosemaria Genova, that they raised the rent and then evicted him and that
Rosemaria extorted $50 from him, all in retaliation for his cooperation with the federal
investigation.

All of the defendants, except Rosemaria, are represented by lawyers from the same
firm. She has separate representation, Her counsel now moves, on her behalf, for judgment
on the pleadings, contending that the claim against her in count XI is not sufficiently related
to the other claims to confer supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). That
motion is denied.

Jerome does not join in the motion, and for good reason. Count XI alleges another

form of retaliation by him, all part of a common scheme to get back at plaintiff because of his


No. 01 C 5125 Page2

cooperation. And for that one form, it picks up Rosemaria as well. We have no doubt that
it is sufficiently related to confer jurisdiction. But supplementary jurisdiction is
discretionary, and we recognize that the claim against Rosemaria, particularly that relating
to a $50 extortion, has somewhat of the quality of an afterthought. We recognize also that
Rosemaria has separate counsel. It would be unfair to her if she had to bear the expense of
her attorney’s full participation in a sprawling lawsuit that involved her only in a minor way.
We will, for now, exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction. We will reconsider that
decision, however, unless plaintiff, during discovery, specifically advises her counsel when
discovery will not relate to Rosemaria — which should be almost all of it — so that he need not
participate.

We also grant plaintiffs motion to strike affirmative defenses 1-4 and 7-12, with leave
to replead within 21 days. And if discovery should turn up support for a defense not then on
file, leave to amend will be freely granted. What we said in Beveridge v. Mid-West
Management, Inc., 1999 WL 1295115 (N.D. IIL), is equally applicable here:

The affirmative defenses, or at least the customary ones, are set forth in Rule

8(c). Some of those plead here clearly are affirmative defenses, but they omit

the short and plain statement of facts necessary to sustain them. See Heller

Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1286, 1294-95 (7" Cir.

1989). Others are, in effect, contentions that plaintiffs have their facts wrong,

that they cannot prove the necessary elements of their claims. But those are

covered by the denials in the answer. Affirmative defenses are, essentially

“Yes, but” formulations — “even if plaintiffs prove everything they have alleged

they still lose because....” Rather than plow through all 27 “defenses” we think

the better course is for defendants to start over, recognizing that the defenses

required to be plead affirmatively are few, that they need some factual

development, and that even those should be advanced only if defendants
believe after a reasonable inquiry that they have legal and factual support.

Beco

JAMES B. MORAN
Och nior Judge, U. S. District Court
17,2001.