Warren et al v. St. Louis VOA Elderly Housing, Inc. et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' Civil RICO claims (Counts VI and XII) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' other claims is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Punitive Da mages (Doc. No. 13 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Order. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 11/20/09. (CSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SANDY E. WARREN, d/b/a S&M SECURITY, and MELANIE WARREN, ) ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) ST. LOUIS VOA ELDERLY HOUSING, ) INC., d/b/a EADS SQUARE APARTMENTS, ) and VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA ILLINOIS, ) Defendant(s). )

Case No. 4:09CV1125 JCH

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Punitive Damages (Doc. No. 13). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition. DISCUSSION This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. (Petition, Doc. No. 1-2). Defendants removed this action to this Court based upon federal question

jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 6); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs alleged two causes of action for Civil RICO in their thirteen count state court petition. (Petition, Counts VI, XII; Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 5, 6); see 18 U.S.C. 1964 (affording federal district courts jurisdiction over RICO claims). In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants seek to dismiss, among other counts, Plaintiffs' two Civil RICO claims. (Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 11, ¶ 7). In their response, Plaintiffs concede that their Civil RICO claims are insufficient and move for the dismissal of the RICO claims. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 20, ¶ 5). Plaintiffs

then "suggest to the Court that this matter should be remanded to state court on jurisdictional grounds." (Id.) The Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Civil RICO claims (Counts VI and XII) and remands this case to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Strike and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining claims as moot. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' Civil RICO claims (Counts VI and XII) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' other claims is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney's Fees and Punitive Damages (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. An appropriate Order of Remand will accompany this Order.

Dated this 20th day of November, 2009.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-