## Facts

- King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd., a pay-per-view distributor, sued J.C. Dimitri’s Restaurant, Inc. and an associated individual, James Chelios, alleging unauthorized interception and exhibition of a pay-per-view event.
- Defendants filed a 35-paragraph response to the complaint.
- In 30 paragraphs, defendants used the formula: “Neither admit nor deny the allegations ... but demand strict proof thereof,” rather than admitting, denying, or stating lack of knowledge.
- The court addressed the sufficiency of the responsive pleading on its own initiative at the pleadings stage.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s statement that it “neither admits nor denies” an allegation while “demanding strict proof” satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b).
2. If not, whether the complaint’s allegations corresponding to that form of response must be treated as admitted.

## Decision

- The court held that “neither admit nor deny, but demand strict proof” is not a permissible response under Rule 8(b).
- Because defendants did not admit, deny, or properly disclaim knowledge as Rule 8(b) requires, the affected allegations were deemed admitted.
- The court treated the 30 paragraphs using the formulaic nonresponse as admissions of the corresponding complaint allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(b) permits only three forms of responsive pleading to an allegation: (1) admission, (2) denial, or (3) a statement that the party lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, which operates as a denial.
- “Demanding strict proof” is not a substitute for a Rule 8(b) admission, denial, or lack-of-knowledge statement.
- When an allegation requiring a response is not denied (or effectively denied through a proper lack-of-knowledge statement), Rule 8(b) treats the allegation as admitted.
- A federal court may enforce Rule 8(b) pleading requirements and impose the rule’s consequence—admission—when a party files an evasive nonresponse.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that defendants’ repeated “neither admit nor deny, but demand strict proof” responses were legally ineffective under Rule 8(b), and it deemed the corresponding complaint allegations admitted, materially strengthening the plaintiff’s position at the pleadings stage.


King Vision Pay Per View, Ltd. v. J.C. Dimitri’s Rest., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 332 (N.D. Ill. 1998)