Stiriling et al v. St. Louis County Police Department et al

Filing 185

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date of July 22, 2013, is VACATED, with a new trial date and amended CMO to be entered after the new Defendants have responded to the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discover y stay entered on October 25, 2012 (Doc. No. 65), is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 129) filed while the discovery stay was in effect, is DENIED withoutprejudice to refilling by Defendants at a lat er date, consistent with the new CMO to be entered in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stirilings motion to defer consideration of Defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 137.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 5/8/13. (JWJ)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JAMISON STIRILING, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:11CV01932 AGF Defendants, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. In light of the Court’s Order of April 30, 2013, granting Plaintiff Stiriling leave to file an amended complaint that adds party Defendants as well as new factual allegations to this action, the Case Management Order (“CMO”), including the trial date, will need to be amended. In addition, the stay entered by the Court on October 25, 2012, upon Defendant’s request, with respect to depositions set by Plaintiff can now be lifted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date of July 22, 2013, is VACATED, with a new trial date and amended CMO to be entered after the new Defendants have responded to the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery stay entered on October 25, 2012 (Doc. No. 65), is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 129) filed while the discovery stay was in effect, is DENIED without prejudice to refilling by Defendants at a later date, consistent with the new CMO to be entered in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion to defer consideration of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 137.) ___________________________________ AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 8th day of May, 2013. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?