Shannon v. Doane Marketing Research et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint [Doc. # 9 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to remand [Doc. # 14 ] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court sh all remand this action to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (County of St. Louis) from which it was removed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/27/12. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY SHANNON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOANE MARKETING RESEARCH,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12-CV-865 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Also before the Court are the plaintiff’s motions to
amend his complaint and to remand this action to the state court. The issues are fully
briefed.
I.

Background

This is the second lawsuit filed by pro se plaintiff Terry Shannon who asserts that
he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination by his employer, Doane Marketing
Research.1
Plaintiff filed his first action in this Court, asserting claims pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and defamation per se. Shannon v. GFK-Kynetec,
No. 4:11CV2181 (CEJ). Plaintiff then filed a succession of amended complaints. See
Docs. #4, # 34, # 38-2, # 42, # 44-2. On March 21, 2012, the Court issued an order
determining that plaintiff’s complaints did not comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #45. The Court directed plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that complied with several specific requirements or risk dismissal of his action.

1

Plaintiff also names as defendants GFK-Kynetec, GFK-Group, and seven individials.

Seven days later, plaintiff filed a nonconforming amended complaint. #46. Within days
of filing this document, however, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to dismiss without
prejudice. That motion was granted on April 10, 2012.
On April 16, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant action in the Twenty-First Judicial
Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis County), again alleging unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA),
Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 213.010 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On May 14,
2012, defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. [Doc. #1]. On May 17, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, noting that the removed complaint suffered from the same deficiencies
noted in plaintiff’s prior lawsuit. [Doc. #7]. Also on May 17th, plaintiff filed a motion to
amend his complaint to remove his federal claims. [Doc. #9]. He also filed the proposed
amended complaint [Doc. #12], a memorandum in support of that complaint [Doc. #13],
and a motion to remand to state court. [Doc. #8].2
II.

Discussion

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
(1)

Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within:
(A)

21 days after serving it, or

(B)

if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),
whichever is earlier.

Here, plaintiff filed his motion to amend the same day that defendants filed their
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Because plaintiff moved to amend within
2

Plaintiff filed a second motion to remand on May 22, 2012. [Doc. #14]. Before
the defendants responded to the motion to remand, plaintiff filed yet another motion to
amend his complaint [Doc. #16]. Since that time, plaintiff has filed a motion for partial
summary judgment [Doc. #23] and an amended motion for partial summary judgment
[Doc. #26].

-2-

the time contemplated by Rule 15(a)(1), his amendment was “as a matter of course” and
leave was not required for the amended complaint to govern plaintiff’s claims.
The amended complaint no longer states any federal claims and the parties are not
diverse. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law
claims because the MHRA’s “safeguards are not identical to the federal standards and can
offer greater discrimination protection.” Wierman v. Casey’s General Stores, 638 F.3d
984, 1002 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d
814, 818–19 (Mo. 2007) (en banc)); Clark v. Matthews Intern. Corp., 628 F.3d 462, 472
(8th Cir. 2010) (claim under MHRA raised novel or complex issue of state law) (vacated
in part on rehearing). Because subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, this action will
be remanded to the state court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint [Doc. #9]
is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand [Doc. # 14] is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this action
to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (County of St. Louis) from which it
was removed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of September, 2012.

-3-