Ronnoco Coffee LLC v. Castgna et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, Ronnoco's motion to strike 21 is hereby DENIED. In their reply, Defendants raise new issues concerning the corporate structure of Ronnoco and Trident. These issues were not addressed in the parties' pr evious briefing because they relate to trial testimony recently elicited in another trial in this Court. In light of these new assertions, the Court hereby GRANTS Ronnoco seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file any surreply to Defendants' reply. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/17/2021. (CLO)

Download PDF
Case: 4:21-cv-00071-JAR Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/17/21 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 206 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RONNOCO COFFEE, LLC, d/b/a RONNOCO BEVERAGE SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN CASTAGNA and JEREMY TORRES, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:21-CV-00071 JAR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ronnoco’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 21). Ronnoco moves this Court to strike and/or disallow Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss Ronnoco’s complaint as it was filed two days past the February 10, 2021 deadline ordered by the Court. Motions, briefs, memoranda, objections or affidavits are not pleadings and courts in this district have generally not permitted parties to attack such non-pleadings through motions to strike. See, e.g., Shea v. Peoples Nat. Bank, No. 4:11-CV-1415-CAS, 2013 WL 74374, at *1-2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing cases); Khamis v. Bd. of Regents, Se. Missouri State Univ., No. 1:09CV145RWS, 2010 WL 1936228, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 13, 2010) (a memorandum in opposition “is not a pleading and cannot be attacked with a motion to strike”). Moreover, the Court finds that no party is prejudiced by the filing of Defendants’ reply two days out of time. Accordingly, Ronnoco’s motion to strike [21] is hereby DENIED. In their reply, Defendants raise new issues concerning the corporate structure of Ronnoco and Trident. These issues were not addressed in the parties’ previous briefing because they relate 1 Case: 4:21-cv-00071-JAR Doc. #: 23 Filed: 02/17/21 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 207 to trial testimony recently elicited in another trial in this Court. In light of these new assertions, the Court hereby GRANTS Ronnoco seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file any surreply to Defendants’ reply. Dated this 17th day of February, 2021. JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?