its entirety, with leave being granted to file a self-contained
Amended Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course
being transmitted to plaintiffs! counsel) on or before March 21
2003. In addition:

1. Because there is no reason that the sins

of Maytag's counsel should be visited on

their client, they are ordered to make no

charge for the services involved or for any

expenses incurred in connection with the

Amended Answer,

2. Maytag's counsel are further ordered (a)

to send a copy of this order to their client,

together with a letter notifying the client

of the directive set out in the preceding

paragraph, and (b) to send a copy of the

latter letter to this Court (for information,

not for filing).

CM. Q, atn

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 10, 2003



Most her Fats (9

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

Milton I. Shadur
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER

03 C1548

DATE 3/10/2003

CASE Michael Dewick, Sr. vs. Maytag Corp.
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indivate the purly (ling the motion, e.g, plaintitY, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (bh) stale briedly the nature
MOTION: of he motion being presented, |

DOCKET ENTRY:

(8) o Filed motion of [ use fisting in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

(3) Qa Answer brief to motion due ___._ Reply to answer brief due

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for ab

(5) imi Status hearing[held/continued to] |sct 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) a Trialfset for/re-set for] on _ at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

() 4a This case is dismissed {with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OrRCP4n) [Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) ME [Otherdockcet entry] inter Memorandum Order. For the reasons stated here, Maytag’s Answer is
stricken in its entirety, with leave being granted to file a delf-contained Amended Answer in this Court's
chambers on or before Match 21, 2003.

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

No notices required, advised in open court, Document
— ; Number
No notices requited. umber af notices
| Notices mailed by judge's stat.

Mail AQ 450 torm.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail novices:

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

SN

11,2003

thes deere

WAR

-

courtroom
deputy's
initials

ventral Clerk's Office



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

DOCKETED

MAR j. 1 2003

MICHAEL A. DEWICK, SR. AND

HOLLY M. DEWICK, as Parents and
Next of Kin to MICHAEL A. DEWICK,
JR., a minor

No, 03 C 1548
Plaintiffs,
v.

MAYTAG CORPORATION and
HOME DEPOT U,.S.A.,INC.

)

)

}

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Maytag Corporation (“Maytag”) has filed its Answer to the
personal injury action brought against it and Home Depot U.S.A.,
Ine. by Michael A. Dewick, Sr. and Holly M. Dewick by reason of
serious injuries assertedly sustained by their infant son when he
was burned seriously after crawling into the broiler in a Maytag
gas range, Because the Answer is the type of pleading that
should never be filed by any federal practitioner, defeating as
it does the purposes of the notice pleading regime in the federal
courts, this Court strikes it sua sponte -- but obviously with
leave to replead.

To begin with, Count I Answer §§ 3 through 9 reveal that
counsel have either never read the second sentence of
Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 8(b) or, having read it, have promptly
forgotten it. Some of those paragraphs also include a

meaningless demand for “strict proof,” a concept totally absent



from modern pleading or practice. In both of those respects, see

App. §1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.

276 (N.D. T11l. 2001).

Next, Count I Answer 4 10 through 13, in addition to
repeating the inappropriate “strict proof” demands, purport to
deny the corresponding allegations in Complaint Count I. But if
it is really true that Maytag can disclaim the ability to respond
to all of the earlier Answer 44 3 through 9 in objective good
faith, there would appear to be no way in which it can knowingly
deny all aspects of the allegations of Count I Complaint 4§ 12
and 13 (although Count I Answer §§ 10 and 11 may be less
problematic in that respect).

Next, Maytag's first affirmative defense (“AD”) to Count I
asserts the Illinois statute of repose, 735 ILCS 5/13-213, asa
bar to this action. Any claimed applicability of that provision
must be fleshed out, however, in light of the allegation in Count
I Complaint § 5 that plaintiffs bought the Maytag range in the
year 2001.

What has been said to this point is of course equally
applicable to Maytag's responses to Complaint Count II.
Accordingly, the Amended Answer required by this memorandum order
must be a self-contained responsive pleading directed to the
entire Complaint.

For the reasons stated here, Maytag's Answer is stricken in