King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd v. J.C. Dimitri’s Restaurant, Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s complaint included demands for strict proof.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under Rule 8(b), in a response to a complaint the defendant may admit the allegations, deny the allegations, or state a disclaimer. If the defendant fails to choose one, the response will be considered an admission.

Facts.

King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against J.C. Dimitri’s Restaurant, Inc. and James Chelios (Defendants). In the Defendants response to the Plaintiff’s complaint, thirty of the thirty-five paragraph response neither admitted nor denied the Plaintiff’s allegations, but instead demanded strict proof.

Issue.

Was the Defendants’ response a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)?

Held.

Yes, the Defendant’s demand for strict proof in its response violated Rule 8(b) and will be considered statements of admission.

Discussion.

Here, the Defendants’ demand for strict proof in thirty of the response paragraphs do not fall within one of the three categories of an appropriate response under Rule 8(b). Thus, those thirty paragraphs are considered statements of admission to the Plaintiff’s complaint.