required corrections. No charge is to therefore be made for the
time and expense incurred by GG Schiller's counsel in preparing
the Amended Answer. 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).

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 8, 2004


Minnte Grger Forma (O6/979 5

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

f ; Sitting Judge if Other

see Masiiate Judge Milton 1. Shadur an signed Judge

CASE NUMBER 04 C 2038 DATE 4/8/2004
CASE A-Tech International vs. Glenn G. Schiller
TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintitf, and (h) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due a

(3) oO Answer brief to motion duc____-- Reply to answer brief due_____.

(4) Qa Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

(3) ia) Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__— set for | at

(6) dq Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor at

(7) Oo ‘Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

| (Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Order. As indicated at the outsel, the, GG Schiller’s

entire Answer is stricken, but leave is hereby granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this
court’s chambers on or before April 20, 2004.

No notices required, advised in open court,

qd)

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

Document
Number

No natices required ,
amber uf notices

44-04

sate dockcted

ere
aaeee ined

18/2004

Notices mailed by judge’s staff

Notificd counsel by (elephone.

Ducketing to mail notices

Mail AQ 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrute judge.

dane muiled notice

courtroom \
deputy’s sn
initials

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

rating deputy initials



”

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

A-TECH INTERNATIONAL, LTD. (USA),

Plaintiff,

GLENN G. SCHILLER, individually,
et al.,

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 04 € 2038
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM_ORDER

This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address
several flaws in the Answer just filed by G.G, Schiller &
Associates, L.&.C, (“GG Schiller”) to the Complaint brought
against it and Glen Schiller by A-Tech International, Ltd. (USA)
(“A-Tech”). As reflected here, those flaws are sufficiently
numerous to require the filing of a self-contained Amended
Answer, to obviate the need for this Court and A-Tech's counsel
to deal with patchwork pleading in this action.

To begin with, the Answer's caption is wrong. As this Court
was careful to explain to counsel for GG Schiller when he earlier
filed an erroneous motion for consolidation of this action with
Case No. 04 C 1952 (at that time this case was pending on the
calendar of this Court's colleague Honorable Jack Darrah), no
consolidation of the two lawsuits could then be ordered, and none

has been ordered since then. Consolidation of cases under Fed.

R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 42(a) is a concept that is entirely separate

=~)

and apart from the reassignment of a related case under this



District Court's LR 40.4.

Next, Answer 941 and 4 do not conform to the type of
disclaimer that is required by the second sentence of Rule 8(b)
as a condition to a responding party’s getting the benefit of a

deemed denial--see App. {j1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.

Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). In addition, each
of those paragraphs and Answer 443, 5, 7 and 11 contain
meaningless demands for “strict proof,” all of which are
stricken--again see App. 41 to State Farm.

Finally, this Court has already made it clear that the
allegations in Complaint 42 and the response in Answer {2 do not
address the relevant facts for purposes of determining diversity
of citizenship, which served as the jurisdictional basis for
removal of this action from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Accordingly, when GG Schiller's counsel returns to the drawing
board, Answer 92 should contain the appropriate assertions (and
not jurisdictional irrelevancies) in that respect.

As indicated at the outset, then, GG Schiller's entire
Answer is stricken, but leave is hereby granted to file a self-
contained Amended Answer in this Court's chambers on or before
April 20, 2004 (with a copy of course to be transmitted
contemporaneously to A-Tech's counsel). And because all of the
deficiencies referred to here stem from counsel's errors, there

is no reason that the client should have to pay for making the