Human v. Fisher Investments, Inc.

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Doc. 52 , is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 03/10/2025. (KCD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL HUMAN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FISHER INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:24-cv-01177-MTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

Doc. [52].

Because Plaintiff’s Motion relies on an improper

declaration and its exhibits along with an unverified complaint, the Court will deny the
Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Williams v. Donahoe, 4:13-cv-1150-CAS, 2014
WL 6083133, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2014) (explaining that a court cannot rely on
plaintiff’s unsworn statements at summary judgment); Tweeton v. Frandrup, 287 F.
App’x 541, 541 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (explaining that an unverified complaint
could not be considered as evidence in summary judgment). Given this patent error, the
Court will deny the Motion without requiring opposition briefing by Defendant, the
nonmoving party on this Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(4) (allowing the Court to
issue “any . . . appropriate order” when “a party fails to properly support an assertion of
fact” in a motion for summary judgment); see also, e.g., Dougherty v. Leidos, 4:21-cv01163-MTS, 2023 WL 111893, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).

Plaintiff’s declaration, which purports to be made under 28 U.S.C. § 1746,
contains his typed name only, seemingly being offered as an electronic signature. An
electronic signature does not suffice here. Regardless of whether an electronic signature
is proper under § 1746, compare Blount v. Stanley Eng’g Fastening, 55 F.4th 504, 515–
16 (6th Cir. 2022), with Flakes v. Carr, No. 21-2464, 2022 WL 519909, at *1 (7th Cir.
Feb. 22, 2022) (unsigned and unpublished order), this Court’s Local Rule 2.11 requires
that Plaintiff’s declaration be physically signed. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.11 (providing that
an electronically filed document created for the litigation “must be physically signed” if
signed by someone “other than an attorney of record”). *
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, Doc. [52], is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 10th day of March 2025.

MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*

In addition, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s clear requirement in the Case
Management Order that all memoranda in support or opposition to any dispositive motions must
contain a table of contents and a table of authorities. See Doc. [34] ¶ 5(b); see also Skelton v.
Henry, 390 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2004) (referring to a motion for partial summary judgment as
a dispositive motion); Louisiana United Bus. Ass’n Cas. Ins. Co. v. J & J Maint., Inc., 328 F.
Supp. 3d 563, 568 (W.D. La. 2018) (collecting cases recognizing that motions for partial
summary judgment are indeed dispositive motions).

-2-