To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




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

Citation. 180 F.R.D. 332 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

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.


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.


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


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


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.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following