Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff's section 1938 claims against defendants-police officers under circumstances, where: (1) defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; (2) plaintiff filed response that failed to contain signature in violation of Rule 11(a); Dist Ct. gave plaintiff six days to provide signature; (4) plaintiff failed to do so within said timeframe; and (5) Dist. Ct. thereafter struck plaintiff's response and granted defendants' motion to dismiss on sole basis that it was unopposed. While Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument that signature requirement under Rule 11(a) was not mandatory, it also found that Rule 12(b)(6) prevented Dist. Ct. from granting unopposed motion to dismiss under said Rule solely because there was no response. As such, remand was required for ruling on merits of motion without benefit of plaintiff's response, since Dist. Ct. did not err in striking said response.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Civil Procedure