litigants) on or before March 19, 2001 (and see n.1).

Lie Secs,

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 9, 2001


74, 78 and 120-21), a term that to this Court’s knowledge is
entirely foreign to federal pleading (or, for that matter, to any
other system of pleading known to this Court). It is of course
entirely possible that this Court may be mistaken in that
respect, and counsel’s extensive usage would suggest that they
may know better. Accordingly Advanced’s counsel are ordered, in
addition to the repleading required by this opinion, (1) to
research the origins and current propriety of the “strict proof”
locution and (2) to file a memorandum on that subject in this
Court's chambers together with the Amended Answer required by
this memorandum opinion and order.

Fourth, Advanced’s counsel have taken it upon themselves to
decline to answer another host of the Complaint’s allegations on
the premise that they “are not directed toward Advanced.” That
type of self-determination is also impermissible--instead, Rule
8(b) requires that all allegations be responded to in one of the
three ways specified there.

In summary, Advanced’s entire current pleading is stricken.
Its counsel are ordered to file a self-contained Amended Answer

in this Court’s chambers (with service of course on the other

3° This is not simply makework. Where as here the matters

alleged by plaintiffs make up a seamless web (essentially the
“case or controversy” concept), plaintiffs are entitled to learn
what each of their target defendants know or do not know about
the various allegations, even though a particular defendant may
not be a direct target of one or more of plaintiffs’ claims.

3


Mituie Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ulinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

Milton I, Shadur than Assigned Judge

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

SN

CASE NUMBER 00 C 7363 DATE 3/9/2001
CASE Johnny’s IceHouse, Inc., et al vs. Amateur Hockey Assoc.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(i) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due,
(4) QO Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at _
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) O General Rule21 (FRCP41(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. In summary, Advanced’s entire
current pleading is stricken. (32-1) Its counsel are ordered to file a self-contained Amended Answer in
this Court’s chambers (with service of course on the other litigants) on or before March 19, 2001.

(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:
a | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

MAR 12 2001

dute dacketed

CS.

dockeling deputy initials

39/2001

date mailed notice

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

railing deputy initials



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

JOHNNY’S ICEHOUSE, INC., et al., ) MAR 12 2001
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 00 C 7363
AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION OF
ILLINOIS, et al., )
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Advanced Arenas, Inc. (“Advanced”) has filed what purports

to be its Answer to Complaint and First Amendment to Complaint.
Because that pleading proceeds from a series of warped
perceptions of basic principles of federal pleading, it is
stricken in its entirety, and Advanced’s counsel must return to
the drawing board.*

It is true that on January 22, 2001 this Court dismissed
Advanced as a defendant to the original Complaint in this action
because that initial pleading failed to state a claim against
Advanced (the test under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(6)). But
Advanced’s current filing, which is addressed to the original

Complaint as modified by its First Amendment, has somehow

1 There is no reason that Advanced must pay for the

mistakes of its counsel, who really should know better in the
respects identified here. Hence no charge is to be made to
Advanced for this added work and expense. 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).


distorted that ruling into one that purportedly dismissed all of
the allegations in the original Complaint as against Advanced,
thus entitling it to avoid responding to those allegations at all
(Answer 991-4, 34, 90-93, 95-97, 99-100, 102-107,? 110-14 and
116-18). That is dead wrong, and Advanced is ordered to answer
plaintiffs’ current version of the Complaint (as amended) in its
entirety.

Next, Advanced’s objection that asserts a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction (Answer 447 and 8) reflects another skewed
approach to the law, for 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) expressly confers
“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction
that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article
III of the United States Constitution.” And that section just as
expressly allows the addition of parties defendant (such as
Advanced) once the “case or controversy” criterion has been
satisfied, as is assuredly true here. Both Answer 447 and 8 and
the corresponding First and Second Affirmative Defenses are
therefore stricken.

Third, Advanced’s counsel has salted the Answer liberally
with a packet of apparently meaningless demands for “strict

proof” (Answer 999-15, 17-33, 35, 37-52, 59-64, 66, 67, 70, 71,

2? Advanced has (obviously inadvertently) failed to answer

Complaint 4108.