Plaintiffs’ 7th Amended Complaint violates Section 2-603 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Defendant, Frances House, respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Seventh Amended Complaint in that it fails to state the Plaintiffs’ causes of action in plain and concise statements as the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure requires. Section 2-603(a) of the Code provides that all pleadings shall contain a “plain and concise” statement. Id. The purpose of a short and plain pleading is simple—to present, define, and narrow the issues; and to limit the proof needed at trial. Golf Trust of America v. Soat, 355 Ill. App. 3d 333, 336 (2nd Dist. 2005) (emphasis added). While a complaint is required to plead more than mere legal conclusions,…show more content… Consequently, Frances House respectfully submits that the Seventh Amended Complaint must be dismissed. Moreover, Plaintiffs also improperly allege various legal conclusions couched as evidence in violation of section 2-615 of the Code. Frances House respectfully requests that all such allegations be stricken. In addressing a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188, 192-93 (1995). Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. Chandler v. Ill. Central R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 348 (2003). Hence, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action. Vernon v. Schuster, 179 Ill. 2d 338, 344 (1997). A court must disregard conclusions of law or fact that are not supported by allegations of specific facts. Small v. Sussman, 306 Ill. App. 3d 639, 642 (1st Dist. 1999). On a motion to dismiss, the pleadings are to be strictly construed against the pleader. Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 421 (1981). Unlike a 2-619 motion to dismiss, a party moving to dismiss under a 2-615 motion denies the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Bank of Northern Ill. v. Nugent, 223 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2nd Dist.