an informational matter (not for filing).

Date:

October 5,

2001

Clu Cl. Dte,

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge



Minte Order Form (06°97)

United States District Court, Northern District of IMinois

Ni of Assigned Judge 7 Sitting Judge if Oth
oe Magistrate Judge Milton 1, Shadur than Assigned Sudge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 6855 DATE 10/5/2001
CASE Laborers’ Pension Fund vs. King & Larsen
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[in the following box (2) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 37d party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() oO Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due.

(3) Qo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon____ssetfor_ at.

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—setfor__—_ att

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on __setfor_ at.
(©) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_____at

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

OUFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(1) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

(10) MM [Otherdocketentry] Enter Memorandum Order. The current answer is stricken in its entirety, with
leave granted to file a proper Amended Answer in this Court’s chambers on or before October 19, 2001.

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
ices required number of notices

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone, NCT 2.9 2001

date docketed)

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. . : docketing Teputy inital

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

10/5/2001

courtroom date mailed notice
SN deputy’s sw
initials

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



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DOCKETED
EASTERN DIVISION ;
OCT 0 9 2001

LABORERS' PENSION FUND,
et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v. No. 01 C 6855

KING & LARSEN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

King & Larsen Construction, Inc. and M.A. King Construction,
Inc. have filed a purported Answer to the ERISA Complaint brought
against them by two employee benefit funds (“Funds”). This
memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require the correction
of defense counsel's disregard of the plain language of the
second sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule”) 8(b).

That sentence could scarcely be written in more

straightforward English, and it identifies exactly what any
defendant must disclaim to get the benefit of a deemed denial of

a plaintiff's allegations (see also App. 41 to State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001)).

So it is understandably annoying when lawyers disregard that
plain directive and tender a responsive pleading that is shot
through with departures from that language that do not reveal
whether, in the objective good faith demanded by Rule 11, a

defendant can indeed meet the demanding standards so carefully


prescribed by the Rule--in this instance, Answer 43, 4, 6, 10
through 18, 20 through 23 and 28 through 30 are deficient on that
score. Indeed, it is more than doubly annoying when less than
two weeks ago the selfsame lawyer, acting for the selfsame
clients, had his attention called expressly to the State Farm v.
Riley Appendix in connection with his unfamiliarity with still
another fundamental principle of federal pleading.?

Under all of the circumstances one aspect of the response
does seem a bit ironic: Defense counsel's website begins with
the self-evaluation of “LegalStrongMinds.” In any event, the
current Answer is stricken in its entirety, with leave granted to
file a proper Amended Answer in this Court's chambers (with a
copy of course to Funds! counsel) on or before October 19, 2001.

As was true in Case No. 01 ¢C 2919, no charge is to be made
to defendants by their counsel for the added work and expense
incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. And this time
defense counsel are ordered to apprise their clients to that
effect by a letter accompanied by a copy of this opinion, with a

copy of the letter to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as

+ See this Court's September 26 memorandum order in Cement

Masons Pension Fund v. King & Larson, No. 01 C 2919. And in that
respect defense counsel may be assured, despite what this Court's
secretary reported as to the nature of his insolent telephonic
inquiry on receipt of that order, that this Court is not “sick”
because it regards conformity to the Rules as the responsibility
of any lawyer who seeks to practice in federal court. Those who
live in glass houses surely ought to refrain from throwing
stones.