Collins v. Pine Law, City of et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs First Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings (Doc. No. 60 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brian Kruegers Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 34 ) is DENIED as moot, withou t prejudice to Defendant Kruegers right to refile by incorporation or otherwise. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Donnell Smiths Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 40 ) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Defendant Smiths right to refile b y incorporation or otherwise. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Donnell Smiths Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 58 ) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice toDefendant Smiths right to refile by incorporation or otherwise. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Party Donnell Smith (Doc. No. 62 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/10/2016. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RICKEY COLLINS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PINE LAWN, MISSOURI, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-1231-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion for Leave to Amend
Pleadings (Doc. No. 60) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Donnell Smith’s
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 62). Also pending before this Court are the
following motions: Defendant City of Pine Lawn’s (“Pine Lawn”) Motion to Dismiss
Count XII of Plaintiff’s amended petition invoking the civil enforcement provision of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(c) (“RICO”)
(Doc. No. 22); Defendant Brian Krueger’s Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 34);
Defendant Donnell Smith’s Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 40); and Defendant
Donnell Smith’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 58).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings
will be granted.

Because Smith and Krueger’s outstanding motions to dismiss are

directed at the previous amended petition, they will be denied as moot, without prejudice
to the parties’ ability to refile. However, the Court will address Pine Lawn’s Motion to
1

Dismiss Count XII by separate order, as the portion of Plaintiff’s pleading at which that
motion is directed has not changed in the proposed second amended petition, and the
motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
Procedural Background
On May 12, 2016, Defendant Donnell Smith filed his Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss. On May 13, 2016—the deadline for filing motions for amendment of pleadings,
pursuant to the Court’s case management order—Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to
file an amended pleading. Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading asserts several new
counts, including against individual Defendants Krueger and Smith. However, it does
not add any additional defendants.
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended pleading. As
Defendants point out, Plaintiff’s motion failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules,
because it did not include the proposed amended pleading. The proposed amended
pleading was filed, pursuant to the Court’s instruction, roughly a week later. Thus,
Defendants argue that is not timely, and that Plaintiff’s amendments do not cure the
deficiencies raised in the outstanding motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Pine Lawn,
Smith, and Krueger. Plaintiff argues in response that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1)(B) allows for amendment of a pleading within 21 days after a motion is filed
under 12(b), and therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend was timely in light of Defendant
Smith’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. More generally, Plaintiff argues that his
motion was filed within the deadlines set by the Court, and that he was diligent in
attempting to meet the deadlines set by the case management order.
2

Discussion
With regard to amendment of pleadings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)
provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) states that, as a matter of course, a
party may amend a pleading within 21 days of service of a motion under Rule 12(b). The
Court finds that because Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed immediately after
Defendant Smith’s supplemental motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b), and within
the Court’s timeframe for filing amended pleadings as set forth in its case management
order, Plaintiff’s motion should be granted.
Plaintiff’s proposed amended petition asserts new counts against Defendants
Krueger and Smith. Therefore, Krueger and Smith’s outstanding motions to dismiss
(including Smith’s supplemental motion to dismiss) will be denied as moot because they
are directed at the previous operative pleading, and no longer address all of the claims
directed at Krueger and Smith, respectively.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike

Smith’s supplemental motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.
However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Count XII is identical in both the
previously operative First Amended Petition, and the proposed Second Amended
Petition. Therefore, because Pine Lawn’s Motion to Dismiss Count XII is limited to
unaltered portions of Plaintiff’s operative pleading, the Court will proceed to consider the
motion on its merits by separate order.

3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Motion for Leave to Amend
Pleadings (Doc. No. 60) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brian Krueger’s Motion to Dismiss
Party (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Defendant Krueger’s right
to refile by incorporation or otherwise.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Donnell Smith’s Motion to
Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Defendant
Smith’s right to refile by incorporation or otherwise.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Donnell Smith’s Supplemental
Motion to Dismiss Party (Doc. No. 58) is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to
Defendant Smith’s right to refile by incorporation or otherwise.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Supplemental
Motion to Dismiss Party Donnell Smith (Doc. No. 62) is DENIED as moot.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of June, 2016.

4