Scott v. Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis
| Walter F. Scott |
| Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis and Suburban Journals New Paper of Greater St. Louis, LLC |
| 4:2008cv01296 |
| August 27, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
154
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment [doc. #152] is DENIED. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 11/16/09. (RJD)
|
|
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [doc. # 147 ] is DENIED. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 10/29/09. (KLH)
|
|
Filing
145
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. #120] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Sur-Reply to Motion [doc. #142] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [doc. #137] andPlaintiff's Objection and Motion for Reconsideration [doc. #141] are DENIED. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on 10/19/09. (RJD)
|
|
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis for the Taking of Depositions [doc. #90] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to take the deposition of Tom Hoga n and Judy Buhrman. If Plaintiff determines that additional depositions are needed, he shall file a Motion with the Court.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and For Expenses [doc.#91] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pl aintiff's Motion for The Court to Enforce its Order and for Expenses [doc. #92] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendant is not required to supplement or amend its answer to interrogatory 15. Defendant shall supplement its answer to i nterrogatory 15(c) to include the word 'yes' and will supplement its answer to interrogatory 16 to include office locations from August 1, 2005 to the present.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [doc. #95 ]is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendant shall not answer Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Supplemental Interrogatories, however, the Court declines to award attorney's fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for L eave to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint and to Join Indispensable Parties and to Add Counts [doc. #97] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall docket "Plaintiffs Amended Fifth Amended Complaint" [doc. #75-2], filedon June 2, 2009, as the operative complaint in this action. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on July 29, 2009. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for leave to Amend Complaint to Join Indispensable Parties and to Add Count II 78 is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint by July 30, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of the Case Management Order 83 is DENIED, as moot. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on June 25, 2009. (MCB)
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to reconsider the Courts May 19, 2009 Order is DENIED. [Doc. 74 ] Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 6/4/09. (KJF, )
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER In accordance with the hearing held in this matter on May 19, 2009, and as announced from the bench; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel responses to written interrogatories and for expenses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as follows: Defendant shall supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3 and state its policies and procedures after it determines whether there is an outstanding debit balance; In regard to interrogatory No. 15, def endant shall provide plaintiff with a list of similarly situated businesses or persons, who were allowed to advertise with the Suburban Journal five (5) years prior to August 12, 2008, despite having an outstanding debit balance with the Suburban Jou rnal or any of its sister or affiliated companies, including, but not limited to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC; Defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 15(c) and state whether and how the Journal engages in the collection of its debts; Defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 16, and state the total number of office locations for the Suburban Journal in St. Louis City and County, and identify which offices accept advertisements. The motion is DENIED without prejudice in regard to Interrogato ry No. 4. In the event the Court grants plaintiff leave to file his fifth amended complaint, defendant shall answer Interrogatory No. 4. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. [Doc. 67] Granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 5/19/2009. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion to make more definite is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's claims arising under 42 U.S.C . § 1982 and state law. The motion is denied as to plaintiff's claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. [Doc. 24 ] An Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 1/30/09. (KJF, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
