Repeated Assertions of Non-Germane Affirmative Defenses Elicit Sanctions Admonition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of defendants’ answer and affirmative defenses because the responsive pleadings were not relevant to plaintiffs’ claims. “In their answer to the complaint, defendants raise an affirmative defense of unclean hands based on alleged breaches of sections of the handbook by a non-party to this litigation. . . . The court has previously explained that defendants’ allegations are irrelevant to an unclean hands defense. Yet defendants, through their counsel, again attempt to place the allegations at issue. It is telling that defendants’ three-page argument in support of the defense contains no citation to any law. Such behavior warrants the inference that defendants, through their counsel, seek to use the court system to publicly attack the reputations of both the plaintiffs and the non-party. This has generated unnecessary motion practice and generated significant waste of the court’s limited resources. The court instructs defendants to consider 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1) before making additional filings.”

Signal Financial Holdings LLC et al v. Looking Glass Financial LLC et al, 1-17-cv-08816 (ILND 2018-02-08, Order) (Joan H. Lefkow)

2018-02-12T12:56:02+00:00 February 12th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|