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

Brief Fact Summary.

King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd. sued  J.C. Dimitri’s Restaurant, Inc. and James Chelios, with the defendants failing to admit or deny the plaintiff’s claims.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A defendant may not plead a nonresponse in federal court when a responsive pleading is required by FRCP 8(b).

Facts.

King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd. (PPV) sued  J.C. Dimitri’s Restaurant, Inc. and James Chelios (Defendants). In 30 of the 35 paragraphs in the response to the complaint, the defendants neither admitted or denied the claims.

Issue.

Whether a defendant may plead a nonresponse in federal court when a responsive pleading is required by FRCP 8(b)?

Held.

No. Every allegation in the response is deemed admitted because to neither admit or deny claims is expressly omitted from the three options for responsive pleadings under FRCP 8(b).

Discussion.

A defendant may not plead a nonresponse in federal court when a responsive pleading is required by FRCP 8(b). There are three options when responding to a complaint: (1) admit, (2) deny, (3) or provide a disclaimer, that will be deemed a denial. When a party fails to follow requirements for responsive pleadings, Rule 8(b0 deems the response to a claim admitted, if the claim is not denied.