13 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 276,185 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (2007) Cited 64,160 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"
Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G
953 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 802 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress has "blotted out (almost) all state law" regarding employee benefit plans
Hall v. Norfolk Sourthern Ry. Co.
469 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 255 times
Holding that a motion to amend the complaint was a non-dispositive motion even when its denial prevented plaintiff from adding a defendant
N.A.A.C.P. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
978 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 345 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that McCarran Act did not preempt application of Fair Housing Act against redlining by insurance companies where state law outlawed the practice but provided no private remedy
In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig.
231 F.R.D. 331 (N.D. Ill. 2005) Cited 125 times
Finding untimely motion to compel can only succeed by showing actual and substantial prejudice.
SK Hand Tool Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
852 F.2d 936 (7th Cir. 1988) Cited 115 times
Holding that the district court's mere statement that costs were "reasonably incurred", with no indication of how it determined those costs, was sufficient
Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago
170 F.R.D. 435 (N.D. Ill. 1996) Cited 27 times
Finding that members benefited from the program at issue and would suffer significant financial losses due to the outcome of the case had an interest for purposes of Rule 24
Harper v. City of Murphysboro, Illinois
CIVIL NO. 08-182-GPM (S.D. Ill. Jul. 15, 2008) Cited 3 times
CIVIL NO. 08-182-GPM. July 15, 2008 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER G. MURPHY, District Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Jackson County and Michael Wepsiec pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement (Doc. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 11, 2008 (Doc. 2). It contains 47 paragraphs alleging, inter alia, that Defendants violated Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth,
Cohn v. Taco Bell Corp.
147 F.R.D. 154 (N.D. Ill. 1993) Cited 7 times
Finding that staying discovery was "particularly inappropriate" in the case for various reasons pertaining to the facts of that case
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 161,761 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 98,841 times 678 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,612 times 51 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Clark et al v. City of Chicago et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Holding that Congress has "blotted out (almost) all state law" regarding employee benefit plans

Holding that a motion to amend the complaint was a non-dispositive motion even when its denial prevented plaintiff from adding a defendant

Holding that McCarran Act did not preempt application of Fair Housing Act against redlining by insurance companies where state law outlawed the practice but provided no private remedy

Finding untimely motion to compel can only succeed by showing actual and substantial prejudice.

Holding that the district court's mere statement that costs were "reasonably incurred", with no indication of how it determined those costs, was sufficient

Finding that members benefited from the program at issue and would suffer significant financial losses due to the outcome of the case had an interest for purposes of Rule 24

Finding that staying discovery was "particularly inappropriate" in the case for various reasons pertaining to the facts of that case

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"