A.O. Smith Corporation et al v. Emerson Electric Co. et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' pleading filed as a "Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(B) of This Court's August 5, 2011 Order Dismissing Defendant Emerson Appliance Solutions" in CM-ECF but captioned as a Memorandumof Law in Opposition to Emerson Appliance Solutions' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 9/21/11. (KXS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION and
A.O. SMITH ENTERPRISES, LIMITED,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY and
EMERSON APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11CV1117 TIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. All matters are pending before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge, with consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On July 7, 2011, Defendant Emerson Appliance Solutions filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Docket
No. 11). Plaintiffs did not timely file any responsive pleading or opposition to the motion.
After reviewing the motion, the undersigned granted the unopposed motion on August 5, 2011, for
the reasons argued by Emerson Appliance Solutions. (Docket No. 16). On August 8, 2011, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion of A.O. Smith Enterprises, Limited for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(B) of this
Court’s August 5, 2011 Order Dismissing Defendant Emerson Appliance Solutions. (Docket No. 17).
Defendant Emerson Appliance Solutions file a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Rule
60 Motion (Docket No. 18) on August 9, 2011, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply thereto on August 11,
2011. (Docket No. 19). Without seeking leave of Court, Plaintiffs have filed on a Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to Emerson Appliance Solutions’ Motion to Dismiss and captioned the pleading
when filing in CM-ECF as a “Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to
Rule 60(B) of This Court’s August 5, 2011 Order Dismissing Defendant Emerson Appliance

Solutions” on September 19, 2011. (Docket No. 24).
A review of the instant civil docket shows that any responsive pleading to Defendant Emerson
Appliance Solutions’ Motion to Dismiss would have been due no later than July 18, 2011. In order
to file this instant pleading out of time, Plaintiffs must seek leave of Court thereby giving Defendant
Emerson Appliance Solutions time to file any opposition or responsive pleading on the record. The
Court expects the parties “to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.”
Tockstein v. Spoeneman, Cause No. 4:07cv20ERW, at * 3 (Mar. 12, 2009). Because Plaintiffs did
not seek leave of court before filing the Opposition and after the Court ruled on the Motion to
Dismiss, the Court will strike the pleading in its entirety. See Id.; Ronwin v. Ameren Corp.,, 2007
WL 4287872, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2007). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ pleading filed as a "Memorandum in Support
of Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(B) of This Court's August 5, 2011 Order
Dismissing Defendant Emerson Appliance Solutions" in CM-ECF but captioned as a Memorandum
of Law in Opposition to Emerson Appliance Solutions’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) is
STRICKEN.

Dated this 21st day of September, 2011.

/s/Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-