## Facts

- Bobby E. Milton filed an amended complaint asserting three counts: (1) Title VII retaliation against Ira E. Clark Detective Agency, Inc. (Clark); (2) race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Clark; and (3) Title VII race discrimination and retaliation against General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc. (General Dynamics).
- Count I’s heading identified Clark as the defendant, and Count I contained paragraphs 7–52 that largely described Milton’s work relationship with Clark; some of those paragraphs also referenced General Dynamics.
- Count III (the Title VII claim against General Dynamics) incorporated by reference paragraphs 1–52 from Count I, making those allegations part of Count III as pleaded against General Dynamics.
- In its answer to Count I, General Dynamics repeatedly stated that it was “not required to answer” paragraphs 6–52 because those allegations were “directed to” Clark.
- In its answer to Count III, General Dynamics responded to paragraphs 1–52 by incorporating its Count I responses (including the “not required to answer” statements) into Count III.
- General Dynamics also included an end-of-answer statement that any allegation not specifically admitted or denied was denied.
- Milton moved to have paragraphs 6–52 of Count III deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), arguing General Dynamics failed to admit or deny those incorporated allegations.
- General Dynamics opposed the motion, contending it did not need to answer allegations aimed at Clark and, in any event, its general denial prevented the allegations from being treated as admissions.

## Issues

1. When a complaint incorporates allegations from one count into another count asserted against a different defendant, must that defendant respond to the incorporated allegations under Rule 8(b)?
2. Does a response stating the defendant is “not required to answer” (because allegations are “directed to” a co-defendant) satisfy Rule 8(b)’s requirement to admit, deny, or state lack of knowledge?
3. If the answer is deficient as to incorporated allegations, should the court treat those allegations as admitted under Rule 8(b)(6), or instead require an amended answer?

## Decision

- The court denied Milton’s motion to deem paragraphs 6–52 of Count III admitted.
- The court ordered General Dynamics to file an amended answer that responds properly to the allegations asserted against it, including allegations incorporated into Count III.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(b) requires a responding party to state, for each allegation asserted against it, an admission, a denial, or a statement that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation.
- Incorporation by reference can make allegations pleaded in one count part of another count; once incorporated into a claim against a defendant, those allegations require a response from that defendant.
- A statement that a party is “not required to answer” an allegation (on the ground that it is aimed at a different defendant) is not a Rule 8(b) admission, denial, or statement of insufficient knowledge.
- Under Rule 8(b)(6), an allegation (other than one relating to damages) is treated as admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.
- Even when an answer is not written in a Rule 8(b) format, a broad denial of all allegations not expressly admitted may weigh against treating large blocks of allegations as admitted; the court may instead order the defendant to replead with specific responses.

## Conclusion

The court declined to treat the incorporated allegations in Count III as admitted, despite General Dynamics’ improper “not required to answer” responses, because its answer also included a broad denial signaling an intent to contest unadmitted allegations; the court’s remedy was to require General Dynamics to submit an amended, allegation-by-allegation answer that meets Rule 8(b).


Milton v. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., 2011 WL 4708637 (2011)