Goertz v. Barton

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Dennis J. Barton III's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 19 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dennis J. Barton III's Motion to S trike Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 26 is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant Barton's request for fourteen (14) days to respond to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/18/14. (JWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID GOERTZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DENNIS BARTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-CV-945-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint and to Strike His Class Allegations (ECF No. 19) and Defendant Dennis J.
Barton III’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26).
On September 12, 2014, Defendant Dennis J. Barton III filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19). On September 17, 2014, this Court entered
a Case Management Order that included a December 3, 2014 deadline for joinder of additional
parties.

(ECF No. 23).

That same day, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action

Complaint against Defendants Dennis J. Barton III and the Barton Law Group, LLC. (ECF No.
24). Thereafter, Defendant Dennis J. Barton III filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint because Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint without leave of
Court and without Defendant’s consent. (ECF No. 26, ¶6). In the alternative, Defendant Barton
asked the Court for an extension of time (14 days) to file a response to the Second Amended
Complaint from the date this Court rules on this Motion. On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
Response to Defendant Barton’s Motion to Strike and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff
stated that leave of Court to file an amended complaint had already been provided pursuant to this

1

Court’s Case Management Order. Plaintiff asked the Court to order Defendant Barton to pay
$295 to the Eason Law Firm for the time and expense of responding to Defendant’s Motion to
Strike.
The Court holds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was properly filed within the
time allowed under the Case Management Order for joinder of additional parties or amendment of
pleadings. Defendant Barton’s Motion to Strike, therefore, is denied without prejudice. Because
Defendant Barton’s Motion to Dismiss is directed at Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the
Motion to Dismiss is also denied without prejudice. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for
monetary sanctions. The Court grants Defendant Barton’s request for 14 days to respond to the
Second Amended Complaint.1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Dennis J. Barton III’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [19] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dennis J. Barton III’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [26] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant Barton’s request for fourteen (14) days to
respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2014.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Defendant Barton’s request is unnecessary. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(3), a response to an
amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or
within 14 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.
2