Opinion ID: 779029
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mend-the-Hold Defense

Text: 22 HD also claims that it preserved its mend-the-hold defense in the pretrial order. We have previously noted that a pretrial conference and a pretrial order are vital parts of the procedural scheme created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Gorlikowski v. Tolbert, 52 F.3d 1439, 1443 (7th Cir.1995). Further, [b]ecause the parties rely on the pretrial conference to inform them precisely what is in controversy, the pretrial order is treated as superceding the pleadings and establishes the issues to be considered at trial. Id. at 1443-44. Moreover, the whole purpose of pretrial conferences and orders is to clarify the real nature of the dispute at issue[;] a claim or theory not raised in the pretrial order should not be considered by the fact-finder. Id. at 1444 (quotations omitted). While this result may seem harsh, pretrial orders help to prevent protracted litigation due to changing theories and arguments such as those that we are encountering in this case. 23 HD claims that it preserved its mend-the-hold defense in paragraph 25 of the pretrial order and in its fourth affirmative defense. Paragraph 25 of HD's Pretrial Order Statement of Uncontested Issues of Fact provides: 24 Whether SNA filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim in the first adversary and asserts that the alleged pecan contract was rejected by operation of the plan of reorganization, that no contract was created, or in the alternative, that the alleged contract was a series of divisible installment contracts based on separate purchase orders and invoices. 25 Nowhere in this paragraph did HD preserve a mend-the-hold defense. Further, HD's fourth affirmative defense in its answer mentions judicial estoppel, not a mend-the-hold defense. See Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank Corp., 922 F.2d 357, 363 (7th Cir.1990) (distinguishing between judicial estoppel and the mend-the-hold defense). In any event, even if HD had mentioned a mend-the-hold defense in its affirmative defenses, as we explained above, a pretrial order supercedes the pleadings and a defense not raised in a pretrial order is deemed waived. See Gorlikowski, 52 F.3d at 1444.