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' previous 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)

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