Doe v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al

Filing 211

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted ECF No. 206 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike/Summarily Deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternate, Clarify Scheduling Order ECF No. 209 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable John A. Ross on 4/11/2012. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:10-CV- 2158-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted [ECF No. 206] and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Summarily Deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
Alternate, Clarify Scheduling Order [ECF No. 209]. Pursuant to the Case Management Order in
this case, “[a]ny motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for judgment on

the pleadings or, if applicable, any motion to exclude testimony … must be filed no later than
December 4, 2011.” (Doc. No. 29, p. 2). The Court will, therefore deny Defendants’ motion as
untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted [ECF No. 206] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Summarily Deny
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternate, Clarify Scheduling Order [ECF No. 209] is
DENIED as moot.

Dated this 11th day of April, 2012.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2