Cason v. St. Louis Public Schools et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2024, Plaintiff must show cause as to why the Court should not accept as undisputed all facts in Defendant Kelvin Adams's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc . [ 68 ]. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the Court accepting all such facts as undisputed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2024, Plaintiff will show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the claims aga inst Defendants St. Louis Public Schools and Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools for failure to prosecute. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against St. Louis Public Schools and Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools. (Show Cause Response due by 2/19/2024.). Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 2/5/2024. (NEP) (Main Document 76 replaced on 2/5/2024) (NEP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN A. CASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:22-cv-00478-SEP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, Docs. [67], [70]. For
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s is ordered to show cause as to why the Court should not
(1) accept as true all facts in Defendant Kelvin Adams’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,
Doc. [68], and (2) dismiss the claims against Defendants St. Louis Public Schools and Board of
Education of St. Louis Public Schools for failure to prosecute.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Kelvin Adams and Defendants St. Louis Public Schools and Board of
Education of St. Louis Public Schools (collectively “SLPS”) filed motions for summary
judgment on December 1, 2023. See Docs. [67]-[72]. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
response to Defendant Adams’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. [73]. Plaintiff did not
respond to Adams’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc. [68]. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c)(1):
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.
And under Rule 56(e):
If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address
another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

1

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—
including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to
it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
The Eastern District of Missouri’s Local Rules provide additional instructions:
Every memorandum in opposition [to a motion for summary judgment] must be
accompanied by a document titled Response to Statement of Material Facts,
which must be separately filed using the filing event “Response to Statement of
Material Facts.” The Response must set forth each relevant fact as to which the
party contends a genuine issue exists. The facts in dispute shall be set forth with
specific citation(s) to the record, where available, upon which the opposing party
relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph
number from the moving party’s Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts. All
matters set forth in the moving party’s Statement of Uncontroverted
Material Facts shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment
unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.
E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff did not comply with these rules in her response to Defendant Adams’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff must show cause why the Court should not deem
all the facts in Defendant Adams’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc. [68], admitted
for the purposes of evaluating Adams’s motion.
Plaintiff filed no response at all to SLPS’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In the last
status conference, Plaintiff’s counsel was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s orders
and rules could result in dismissal of her client’s claims for failure to prosecute. See Doc. [61];
see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). Plaintiff must therefore show cause as to why her claims
against SLPS should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order by Monday, February 19, 2024, the Court will
deem admitted all facts in Defendant Adams’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc.
[68], and will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against St. Louis Public Schools and Board of Education
of St. Louis Public Schools.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2024, Plaintiff must show cause
as to why the Court should not accept as undisputed all facts in Defendant Kelvin

2

Adams’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Doc. [68]. Failure to comply with this Order
will result in the Court accepting all such facts as undisputed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than February 19, 2024, Plaintiff will
show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the claims against Defendants St. Louis
Public Schools and Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools for failure to prosecute.
Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against St. Louis
Public Schools and Board of Education of St. Louis Public Schools.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2024.

SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3