Today, Chicago filed its response to the amended complaint. Read it here
Ya jist gotta love the responses!
Answer: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations [of who the plaintiffs are...]
7. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois.
Answer: Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. [but we know who we are!]
And so it goes, throughout the entire "answer" to the complaint. What's even more interesting is the affirmative defenses:
First Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Ripeness
Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the claims asserted in this case are ripe for adjudication.
Second Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Standing
Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
In round 1, none of the above was ever settled, as the MTD's and MPI's were the immediate concern.