‘ a
Mite Order Fo2TM 5/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois : 7

f Assigned Jud i Sitting Judge if Oth
agitate Judge Milton I, Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1941 DATE 4/23/2002
CASE Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc. vs. Royal Vale Hospitality
TITLE

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

MOTION: L
DOCKET ENTRY:

() oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.] i
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief due

(4) im] Ruling/Hearing on___set for__at

(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor__— at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor___—at__

7) oO Trial{set for/re-set for]on____at

(8) a (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued toa

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

OOFRCP4(m) OiGeneralRule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

ao) =f [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Answer §{{1,16,40,47,54 and 83 are stricken fr
the Answer, with leave being granted to file an appropriate amendment to the Answer in this Cc
chambers on or before May 3, 2002. In the absence of such a timely filing, the corresponding allegai
of Ramada’s Complaint will be deemed to have been admitted by defendants.

(al) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
number of notices

Y_ | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Oiffice nilingdepaty tals



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

EASTERN DIVISION
RAMADA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 ¢ 1941

ROYAL VALE HOSPITALITY OF
CINCINNATI, INC., et al.,

DOCKET

APR 2 4 2002

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Counsel for the three defendants in this action filed by
Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc. (“Ramada”) has filed a responsive
pleading captioned “Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
CounterClaims,” in principal part by employing the imaginative
device of photocopying Ramada's Complaint and inserting
paragraph-by-paragraph typewritten responses on the Complaint
itself. This memorandum order is triggered by one problem posed
by that response.

Even though Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b) requires every
allegation in a complaint to be admitted or denied unless the
responding party properly invokes the disclaimer set out in the
second sentence of that Rule, Answer 9§1, 16, 40, 47, 54 and 83
fail to meet that obligation on the stated premise that the
corresponding Complaint allegations contain legal conclusions
rather than facts. But that ignores the universal recognition,
from the highest judicial sources on down, that legal conclusions

form an entirely proper component of the federal notice pleading


regime--see, e.g., App. 42 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001) and authorities cited
there.

Those portions of the Answer are therefore stricken, but
with leave being granted to file an appropriate amendment to the
Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course
transmitted to Ramada's counsel) on or before May 3, 2002. In
the absence of such a timely filing, the corresponding
allegations of Ramada's Complaint will be deemed to have been
admitted by defendants.

One other item needs attention. Answer 43 denies Ramada's
allegation about the corporate defendant's principal place of
business, but it does so without identifying the proper location.
Because federal jurisdiction is sought to be grounded in
diversity, that missing information is necessary--and it too

should be provided in the amendment called for earlier in this

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

memorandum order.

Date: April 23, 2002