McGuire v. St. Louis County Missouri et al
Plaintiff: Patt McGuire
Defendant: St. Louis County Missouri, Cliff Faddis, Thea A. Sherry, Sue Daniels, Cheryl Campbell, Marshall Day, Ben Burkemper and Lacy Rakestraw
Case Number: 4:2017cv02818
Filed: December 5, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Catherine D. Perry
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 216 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 202 , Motion to Clerk to Correct Error on Filing 207 , Motion to Reinstate Lawsuit 208 , Motion to Allow Each Document filed to be a Stand Alone Document 214 , and Motion to Include Criminal Charges 215 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Stay Motion for Reconsideration 211 is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs [204,] 205 is granted and the Clerk of Court shall tax as costs against plaintiff the sum of $4,894 as set out in the Bill of Costs. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/18/19. (EAB)
February 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 196 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for sanctions 168 is granted, and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for her willful failure and refusal to comply with the Court's O rder compelling the continuation of her deposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of plaintiffs remaining motions are denied as being wholly without merit.A separate Order of Dismissal is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on February 7, 2019. (MCB)
November 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 149 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Compel the Continuation of Plaintiff's Deposition and to Compel Plaintiff to Answer Questions 117 is GRANTED. Defendants may take an additional se ven hours of deposition of plaintiff; plaintiff is ordered to answer the questions asked (including, but not limited to those she failed to answer before), and is directed that she cannot refuse to answer questions unless she is objecting on the gro und that the answer is protected by a privilege. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Amend the Case Management Order 138 is granted only as follows, and all other provisions remain in effect: Any motions for summary judgment mus t be filed no later than January 28, 2019. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than thirty days after the motion or February 27, 2019, whichever is earlier. Any reply brief may be filed no later than twenty days following the response brief o r March 18, 2019, whichever is earlier. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition 124 is granted for the reasons stated in defendants' motion and objections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions are denied as follows: motions regarding Cheryl Campell's deposition 120 , 132 are denied as duplicative and previously ruled; motions to compel St. Louis County to provide a corporate designee and for sanctions 123 , 127 , 140 are denied and defendants' objections, including those to the vagueness of the notice, are sustained; motion filed on November 1, 2018 to compel responses to requests served on October 5, 2018 133 is denied as premature and for failure to meet and confer and attempt to resolve any disputes; motion to compel defendant to produce all positions plaintiff applied for back to 2002 134 is denied as the burden of producing the evidence is out of proportion to its likely benefit, especially giv en its lack of relevance to the issues in this case; motion asking the court to deny any relief sought by any defendant 139 "because Defendants have demonstrated strong disrespect" to the court is denied as contradicted by the record (in fact, it is plaintiff who has demonstrated disrespect for the judicial process); motion asking the Court to honor all established dates 141 is denied because it does not allege that any dates have not been complied with; to the extent that this mot ion is an opposition to defendants' motion to extend the deadline for filing summary judgment motions it is denied; motion asking this Court to review motions filed in a different state court case 143 is denied as the Court lacks jurisdiction to do any such thing, as plaintiff well knows; motion for reconsideration 145 of previous order is denied as the Court believes the previous orders were correctly decided. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Dr. Patt McGuire is warned that her co ntinued failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to her continued refusal to follow the rules of discovery, may result in sanctions, including, if requested, dismissal with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/26/2018. (CBL)
February 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 70 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand 13 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Judge Thea A. Sherry's motion to dismiss 10 is granted and the claims against Judge Sh erry are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss 14 filed by St. Louis County, Cliff Faddis, Sue Daniels, Cheryl Campbell, Marshall Day, Ben Burkemper and Lacy Rakestraw is granted only to the following extent, and is otherwise denied: All claims based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; All claims against defendants Sue Daniels and Lacy Rakestraw are dismissed with prejud ice; All claims against the individual defendants based on Title VII are dismissed with prejudice; and All claims based on acts occurring before August 15, 2016 are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for an emerg ency injunction [ 35 , 58 , 63 ] are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to add party and to consolidate cases [ 32 , 36 , 42 , 56 , 61 , 64 ] are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery remains stayed as s et out in my December 12, 2017 Order [ECF Doc. 29 ] pending the Rule 16 scheduling conference. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied either as moot or as being without merit. A separate Order setting a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 2/5/2018. (CBL)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: McGuire v. St. Louis County Missouri et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: St. Louis County Missouri
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cliff Faddis
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thea A. Sherry
Represented By: Daniel Scott Levy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sue Daniels
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cheryl Campbell
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marshall Day
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ben Burkemper
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lacy Rakestraw
Represented By: Cynthia Hoemann
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Patt McGuire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?