Opinion
No. 4:10-CV- 2158-JAR
04-11-2012
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted [ECF No. 206] and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike/Summarily Deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternate, Clarify Scheduling Order [ECF No. 209]. Pursuant to the Case Management Order in this case, "[a]ny motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for judgment on the pleadings or, if applicable, any motion to exclude testimony ... must be filed no later than December 4, 2011." (Doc. No. 29, p. 2). The Court will, therefore deny Defendants' motion as untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief May be Granted [ECF No. 206] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike/Summarily Deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternate, Clarify Scheduling Order [ECF No. 209] is DENIED as moot.
______________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE