Boyer et al v. Scott Brothers Investment Corporation

Filing 64

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 62 ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 41(1)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [Doc. No. #23], is granted and this matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute.. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 3/21/14. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LAURIE BOYER
and
PATRICIA SUSAN BOYER
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT BROTHERS INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, d/b/a Waterways
Apartments of Lake St. Louis,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV01173 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No.
62], filed on September 18, 2013, a copy of which was served upon Plaintiffs by U.
S. Mail. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is granted.
Facts and Background
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 23] which alleges
violations of the Fair Housing Act(42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq.) in Count I,
Negligence in Count II, Violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in
Count III, and Breach of Contract in Count IV. Plaintiffs allege they have lived in an

apartment since January 3, 2011. Laurie Boyer requested reasonable accommodation
from Defendant when application was made. Plaintiff Laurie Boyer has a service
dog that was considered as a pet. The Defendant has a policy of not considering
service animals as a pet for lease payment, but they were required to pay additional
rents.
Plaintiffs also allege that certain tenants became disruptive by using narcotics,
throwing cigarette butts at Laurie Boyer, and urinating from the deck area of the
apartment above Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs complained and the Defendant sent a
notice of termination of lease to the Plaintiffs and filed an eviction proceeding
against them.
On February 29, 2012 counsel for Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to
Withdraw. [Doc. No. 25]. On May 7, 2012 the Court granted the Motion to
Withdraw, and Plaintiffs were granted until June 12, 2012 to secure new counsel and
have new counsel enter his or her appearance. On June 7, 2012 Plaintiffs were
granted an additional 30 days to secure counsel.
To this date no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have been proceeding in a pro se capacity. Plaintiffs have failed to comply
with the Court order requiring new counsel to enter an appearance. Plaintiffs have

not filed anything on this matter since November 16, 2012. This case was filed on
July 5, 2011 and Plaintiffs have failed to engage in any discovery, abide by the
orders of the court, or otherwise participate in the prosecution of their complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 41(1)(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. #23], is granted and this matter is dismissed for failure to
prosecute.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2014.

_________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE