Maclean-Fogg Co. v. Guangzhou Hotlink Hardware Co, Ltd., No. 12 C 6796, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte struck defendant’s answer for multiple deficiencies.  Initially, it was improperly signed by corporate defendant’s non-lawyer owner.  No non-lawyer can represent a party in federal Court.  Additionally, the answer had the following deficiencies:

• The answer was not made in numbered paragraphs corresponding to the complaint’s paragraphs pursuant to Local Rule 10.1.
• In several places, the answer wrongly states that no answer is necessary because statements are legal conclusions.  Answers must address even legal conclusions.
• While lack of information and belief is deemed a denial, defendant cannot deny statements for which it lacks information and belief.