Miitute Order Fore.(08/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton L. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 04 C 306 DATE 1/26/2004
CASE City International Trucks, Inc. vs. Vehicle Inspection Systems
TITLE
[Inthe 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.]
Defendant's motion to dismiss
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) | Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
@) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) ao Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) qo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [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 CFRCP41(a)(1) OI FRCP41(a\(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Order. Accordingly, as stated at the outset, Vehicle
Inspection’s motion is denied. This Court’s previously scheduled initial status hearing date of February
13, 2004 remains in effect, and the parties are expected to comply with the prehearing requirements of
the memorandum order that established that date.
dl) of {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required, vue of ies
oY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing (o mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials
railing deputy ntnls



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

CITY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC.,

Jay bal "hy

Plaintiff, ? 2004

VEHICLE INSPECTION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Per.
Mey ma Tey

MEMORANDUM ORDER “37 yy

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 04 C 306
)
)
)
Defendant . )

Shortly after removing this action from the Circuit Court of
Cook County to this District Court, Vehicle Inspections Systems,
Inc. (“Vehicle Inspection”) has noticed up a Fed. R. Civ. P.
("Rule”) 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss the Complaint brought against
it by City International Trucks, Inc. (“City International”).

But because the motion misperceives the basic concepts of such a
facial challenge, it is denied out of hand, without requiring
either a response from City International or anyone's appearance
at the specified January 30, 2004 presentment date.

Vehicle Inspection charges that the asserted contract on
which City International sues--an agreement by Vehicle
Inspection, ag the seller of certain vehicle diagnostic
equipment, that City International has an option to require its
repurchase by Vehicle Inspection--violates the statute of frauds
(UCC §2-201(1), found in the Illinois statutes at 810 ILCS 5/2-
201(1)). But even on the arguendo premise that the alleged

agreement is one for the “sale of goods” within the meaning of


that statute,’ Vehicle Inspection's position would require this
Court to go outside of the Complaint to determine that the
contract is not in writing (if that were so, of course).

That does violence to the basic principles underlying Rule

12(b) (6). Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14

(2002) has reconfirmed the propriety of notice pleading such as
that in the Complaint, and Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U.S.
69, 73 (1984) has reconfirmed the test for the sufficiency of a
complaint:

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear

that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.

Conley vy. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

Accordingly, as stated at the outset, Vehicle Inspection's
motion is denied. This Court's previously scheduled initial
status hearing date of February 13, 2004 remains in effect, and

the parties are expected to comply with the prehearing

requirements of the memorandum order that established that date.

“Chl D Sots

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 26, 2004

+ At this threshold stage of the litigation, with only City
International's Complaint in hand, it is both unnecessary and
inappropriate to explore the validity or invalidity of that
premise--or the further question whether, even if the premise is
accurate, some other basis may exist for the enforceability of
the asserted contract.