Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendants to file a new answer complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), treating the motion as one to strike the existing amended answer. Although the court found that portions of the answer used impermissible response forms and deemed those allegations admitted, it declined to strike the answer and granted Defendants leave to file an amended answer by May 21, 2026.
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Decision date
May 15, 2026
Docket number
3:25-CV-01377-NJR
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether portions of defendants' amended answer that did not expressly admit, deny, or assert insufficient knowledge violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b).
- Whether the amended answer should be stricken or defendants should be compelled to file a new answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
- Whether allegations that defendants failed to deny or address through a permissible Rule 8(b) response should be deemed admitted.
Holdings
- Rule 8(b) permits only an admission, a denial, or an assertion that the responding party lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation. Responses outside those forms do not comply with Rule 8(b).
- The amended answer should not be stricken because, unlike defendants' original response, it was a clear attempt to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiffs failed to show specific prejudice from the nonstandard responses.
- Any allegation in the second amended complaint to which defendants responded with something other than a denial or an averment of insufficient knowledge or information is deemed admitted, subject to the exception that subject-matter-jurisdiction allegations cannot be waived.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…