Law School Case Brief
Milton v. Gen. Dynamics Ordnance & Tactical Sys. - No. 3:11-cv-555-JPG-DGW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114177 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2011)
The only permissible responses to a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) are admission, denial, or a statement of the absence of both knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief. The rules do not approve or permit other types of responses. Under Rule 8(b)(6), an allegation is admitted "if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied." Under Rule 8(b)(1)(B), however, a party is required to respond only to allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.
Milton filed a complaint against defendants, Ira E. Clark and General Dynamics, for retaliation and racial discrimination. Defendant General Dynamics answered the allegations by stating: "General Dynamics states that it is not required to answer the allegations contained in paragraph [6 - 52] because they are directed to Defendant Ira E. Clark." Milton then asked the court to deem admitted paragraphs 6 - 52 of Count III, because General Dynamics did not admit or deny the allegations as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
Should the court grant Milton's motion to admit?
The court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Admit Paragraphs 6 - 52. It held that Count I of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, by its own heading, was directed against defendant Ira E. Clark. At the same time, allegations described under that count refer to or involve defendant General Dynamics. In the court's view, plaintiff should have been clearer in specifying allegations against defendant General Dynamics.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class