Today, Chicago filed its response to the amended complaint. Read it
here.
Ya jist gotta love the responses!
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.