Tatum v. North American Central School Bus LLC
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall file its response to the motion for leave to amend complaint (ECF 63 ) as set forth above. Defendant is reminded that all future filings must be served upon plaintiff by mail and contain a certificate of service or they will be stricken from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are not required to submit a joint proposed scheduling plan at this time. Signed by Sr. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/24/2024. (KEK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN TATUM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NORTH AMERICA CENTRAL
SCHOOL BUS LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:23 CV 1219 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a filing submitted in this case by pro se
plaintiff Karen Tatum. ECF 61. In her latest Memorandum for Clerk, Tatum again
complains about this Court’s previous Orders and makes numerous unsupported
assertions about the Clerk’s Office and this Court. These statements are addressed
in turn.
First, Tatum claims that she “did not ever tell this court” that “I am against
I’m supposed to just talk to attorney and that’s my conference. I will await Court
to send me the times and dates I supposed to meet or be here.” ECF 61 at 1.
Tatum challenges “whoever wrote this message” to show her “proof of this quote.”
ECF 61 at 1. The Court “wrote this message” as it appears in my October 3, 2024
Memorandum and Order. And as plainly indicated in that Memorandum and
Order, those statements are direct quotes from plaintiff’s own filing submitted on
October 1, 2024 and filed as ECF 59 at 3. They are not the result of the Clerk’s
Office or this Court “talking and communicating with defense counsel only.”
Tatum then accuses the Court of granting “numerous” extensions of time to
defendant on an ex parte basis. The Court granted one extension of time to file an
answer which was requested by written motion on July 19, 2024. ECF 32. That
motion contains an appropriate certificate of service indicating that it was served
by mail upon plaintiff. ECF 32 at 3. The Court granted the motion on July 22,
2024. ECF 35. Because the time to file the answer had not yet expired, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permitted the Court to extend the time “with or
without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the
original time or its extension expired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (emphasis
supplied). Thus, there was nothing improper about the Court granting defendant a
routine extension of time to file its answer without waiting to see if Tatum
objected. In fact, the Court has also granted Tatum such an extension of time.
ECF 9. And as defendant was seeking additional time to file its responsive
pleading, not amend it, it did not have to file a “proposed answer,” unlike Tatum
who is seeking leave to amend a pleading already filed. Tatum’s proposed
amended pleading is required by the Court’s local rules.
As for Tatum’s assertion that “some clerk put a message out that I requested
or asked them to get me a review appointment,” the Clerk’s Office merely files
2
what Tatum submits to the Court. Tatum claims that “all” she did was send “a
letter up to the court for verification purposes only.” Again, Tatum is not
permitted to send letters to the Court and she should not be submitting documents
in this case “for verification purposes only.” Future filings must be expressly
permitted by the Federal or Local Rules of Civil Procedure. A Memorandum to
Court which does not seek relief but merely complains about prior Orders is
not expressly permitted and should not be submitted in this case.
Tatum’s point about not being served with a copy of defendant’s proposed
scheduling plan (ECF 49) is well-taken, as the document lacks a proper certificate
of service demonstrating that it was mailed to Tatum. Defendant is reminded
that Tatum is a self-represented litigant who does not participate in electronic
filing, so anything filed in this case must be served on her by mail and contain
a proper certificate of service or it will be stricken from the record. Tatum
was, however, mailed a copy of this document by the Court. The Court docket
also reflects that Tatum was properly served by defendant with copies of the pro
hac vice motions filed by defense counsel in this case.
Tatum claims that she should have been served with a “notice of hearing for
pro hac vice so that I may object to this court my reasons.” She also claims that
she has a “right” to “remove” the pro hac vice attorneys representing defendant
because her case “is personal.” ECF 61. There was no hearing on the pro hac vice
3
motions, as no hearing was required. To the extent Tatum is arguing that she has a
right to “choose” defendant’s lawyers, she does not. If plaintiff has valid grounds
to disqualify one or more defense attorneys from participation in this case, she may
file an appropriate motion in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
but any such motion must meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and cannot
be based solely on the fact that Tatum does not like or trust defense counsel.
However, given that Tatum has indicated a willingness to work with local counsel,
I would urge local counsel to do so if practicable given the difficulties already
experienced with moving this case forward.
The Court has received Tatum’s motion for leave to file her proposed
amended complaint. ECF 63. Defendant shall file a response to the motion in
accordance with the time limits set out in the local rules. Defendant’s response
shall also address ECF 62 and 64. Given that Tatum has sought leave to amend her
complaint, the parties are not required to meet and confer or file a joint proposed
scheduling plan at this time. The Court will issue a further Order about the
submission of a joint proposed scheduling plan following its ruling on the motion
to amend.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall file its response to the
motion for leave to amend complaint (ECF 63) as set forth above. Defendant is
4
reminded that all future filings must be served upon plaintiff by mail and
contain a certificate of service or they will be stricken from the record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are not required to submit a
joint proposed scheduling plan at this time.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
5
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?