Weber v. IBEW Local 124 et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GAVIN SEALY'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 22 . Signed on 4/14/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Order mailed to Plaintiff.) (Matthes, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
DARRYL L. WEBER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
IBEW LOCAL 124 APPRENTICESHIP )
BOARD MEMBERS, R.F. FISHER
)
ELECTRIC COMPANY, TOM FURMAN )
and GAVIN SEELY,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:14-CV-1118-W-ODS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GAVIN SEALY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Darryl I. Weber (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis asserting claims of race, color, sex, age and
disability discrimination. Doc. #1. On December 22, 2014, the Court deferred
consideration of Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Plaintiff to provide a description of the
factual events giving rise to his claims. Doc. #4. On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff
responded to the Court’s Order by providing several (1) EEOC, Missouri Commission
on Human Rights, and Kansas Human Rights Commission Charges of Discrimination
and (2) Confidential Witness Affidavits in conjunction with National Labor Relations
Board proceedings. Doc. #5. On January 20, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
identify each alleged adverse employment action, describe each alleged adverse
employment action including the date and the decisionmaker, and provide facts
supporting the claim that each alleged adverse employment action was discriminatory.
Doc. #6. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff responded to the Court’s Order by submitting an
Amended Complaint. Doc. #7. On February 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Doc. #8.

A review of the Record reflects that Plaintiff’s initial Complaint was filed instead of
Plaintiff’s later amended Complaint. Defendant Gavin Sealy’s Motion to Dismiss also
appears to target the initial Complaint. Doc. #23.
The Court intended for Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to be filed and for that to
be the operative pleading in this case. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to file
Doc. #7 as the Amended Complaint in this matter. In light of this, Defendant Gavin
Sealy’s Motion to Dismiss is deemed moot and denied without prejudice. Defendant
Sealy is free to file a Motion to Dismiss that targets the Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: April 14, 2015

2