Stringfield v. Cosentino's Food Stores

Filing 26

ORDER - plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which encompasses all of her allegations contained in both her initial complaint and her supplemental complaint and Plaintiff shall file her Amended Complaint with the Court on or before June 17, 2016; denying 6 Motion for preliminary injunction; and denying 16 motion for leave to intervene. Signed on 5/31/16 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda). Modified on 5/31/2016 to note copy of order sent to plaintiff by regular mail. (Enss, Rhonda).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
MICHELLE M. STRINGFIELD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COSENTINOS FOOD STORES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) No. 15-0693-CV-W-FJG
)
)
)
)
ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff=s Motion for Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction (Doc. # 6) and Motion for Leave to Intervene as an In Kind
Mediator and Attendant (Doc. # 16).
A. Supplemental Complaint
Plaintiff filed her Complaint against defendant Cosentino’s Food Stores on
October 13, 2015. In her initial Complaint, plaintiff asserted claims for unlawful
discharge and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Six days after filing her
initial Complaint, plaintiff filed a document titled “Petition for Preliminary and Permanent
Injunctive Relief and For Assessment of Civil Fines and Penalties.” The document
however appears to be more of an Amended Complaint than a motion for preliminary
injunction. In the motion, plaintiff has separated her claims into two different counts and
the factual basis for each claim is listed in separately numbered paragraphs. In her reply
suggestions, plaintiff states that “for further clarity” she filed an additional complaint with
additional information and facts to support her claims. However, when plaintiff filed her
“additional complaint” she did not reference all of the claims she raised in her initial
Complaint. Thus, the docket sheet currently shows two separate complaints and two

separate answers to these complaints. In order to reduce confusion and to ensure that
all of plaintiff’s claims are contained in one document, the Court directs plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint which encompasses all of her allegations contained in both her
initial complaint and her supplemental complaint. Plaintiff shall file her Amended
Complaint with the Court on or before June 17, 2016.
B. Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
As the Court previously noted, plaintiff titled her pleading a petition for
“Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief.” However, in the pleading and in her reply
suggestions, plaintiff states only that “[t]he Injunctive relief is appropriate in this case
because there is a threat of irreparable harm.” (Plaintiff’s Reply Suggestions, p. 2).
Other than this conclusory statement, plaintiff does not explain why she believes that
there is a threat of irreparable harm. In Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Soo Line R.R., 792 F.3d
903 (8th Cir. 2015), the Court stated:
In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district
court must consider four factors: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the
movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that
granting the injunction will inflict on other parties [ ]; (3) the probability that
[the] movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.”
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th
Cir.1981)(en banc). “The burden is on the movant to establish the need for
a preliminary injunction. . . .” DISH Network Serv. L.L.C. v. Laducer, 725
F.3d 877, 881 (8th Cir. 2013)(internal quotation marks omitted).
Id. at 914. In General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, L.L.C., 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir.
2009), the Court stated, “[i]rreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate
remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an
award of damages.” In DISH Network , the Court noted that “the absence of irreparable
injury is by itself sufficient to defeat a motion for a preliminary injunction.” Id. at 882.
In the instant case, plaintiff has offered nothing more than conclusory allegations
2

that she would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered.
Additionally, plaintiff has offered no reason why her injuries could not be fully
compensated by an award of monetary damages. The Court would note that plaintiff
has also requested an monetary award of damages in her petitions. Accordingly,
because plaintiff has failed to show that she would suffer any irreparable injury, the
Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
(Doc. # 6).
C. Motion For Leave to Intervene
Robert Stringfield has filed an Entry of Appearance as an “in kind” mediator and
attendant in the interest of plaintiff per any alternative dispute resolution. Defendant
states in opposition that Mr. Stringfield in his “Entry of Appearance” fails to provide any
evidence that he is an attorney or that he is admitted to practice before this Court as
required by Western District of Missouri Local Rule 83.5. Tyler v. EPA, No. 8:12CV388,
2013 WL 623472, *1 (D.Neb. Feb. 19, 2013)(“nonattorney pro se litigant may not
represent someone else in federal court.”). In Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d
Cir. 1998), the Court stated, “because pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person
may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause. A person must be
litigating an interest personal to him.” Therefore, the Court finds that because Mr.
Stringfield is not an attorney, he may not appear as an “in kind” mediator or appear on
plaintiff’s behalf in this action. Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Intervene is hereby
DENIED (Doc. # 16).

Date: May 31, 2016
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge
3