United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to withdraw the pending motion to stay (Doc. No. 223),
motion for leave to appear telephonically (Doc. No. 222), and
motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 224).
March 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay these
proceedings because the resolution of another pending state
court case bore upon the instant lawsuit. (Doc. No. 205). The
Court set the motion for a hearing on May 9, 2018, and
directed Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants to appear in
person. (Doc. No. 217).
in their motion to withdraw the motion to stay state that
traveling to Missouri would be a hardship to Plaintiffs, who
filed the motion to stay in an effort to avoid additional
hardship to all parties in the case. Thus, Plaintiffs ask
that their motion to stay be withdrawn. Plaintiffs also filed
a motion to appear telephonically at the May 9, 2018 hearing.
In light of the circumstances of this case, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to withdraw their
pending motion to stay and deny Plaintiffs' motion to
appear telephonically as moot.
also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. (Doc. No. 224). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” “[H]owever, [the
Court] may properly deny a party's motion to amend its
complaint when such amendment would unduly prejudice the
non-moving party or would be futile.” McAninch v.
Wintermute, 491 F.3d 759, 766 (8th Cir. 2007). The
determination as to whether to grant leave to amend is
entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Niagara of Wis. Paper Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union Mgmt.
Pens. Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 1986). A court
abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to amend a
complaint unless there exists undue delay, bad faith,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party,
or futility of the amendment. Popoalii v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008)
lawsuit has been pending since September 11, 2017. Taking
into consideration the fact that Plaintiffs are proceeding
pro se, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs' request
to amend their complaint, and Defendants have filed motions
to dismiss Plaintiffs' first and second amended
complaints. In reviewing the proposed third amended
complaint, the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' efforts to
clarify and streamline their claims against Defendants.
Therefore, although the Court understands that granting the
motion to amend will impose a burden on Defendants, the Court
will grant Plaintiffs' motion to amend. However, no
further motions to amend the complaint will be permitted.
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715
(8th Cir. 2008) (holding that parties do not have an absolute
right to amend their pleadings, even under Rule 15's
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to withdraw their motion to stay (Doc. No.
223) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to
appear telephonically (Doc. No. 222) is DENIED as
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled on May
9, 2018, is CANCELLED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint (Doc. No. 224) is
GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed
to detach Doc. No. 224-2 and docket it as Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed
by Defendants David Lawrence Baylard, Baylard, Billington,
Dempsey & Jensen, P.C., and Damian Robert Struzzi (Doc.
No. 120); Michael Bernheisel, Cynthia Borgard, John Buhmann,
Darin Carter, Deborah Ann Clutter, Thomas Leon Colyott,
Francis Oscar Darian, Jr, Cheryl Davis, Lawrence Deis,
Michael Frank, Bryan Griffith, Sr, Arthur Hurlburt, Crystal
Michelle Kallansrud, Craig Kinneman, Linda Mantia, William
David Mitchell, James Moldovan, Robert Murphy, Linda Nolen,
Russell Richards, Dora Rulo, Thomas Larue Smith, Jr, David
Vilcek, Lance E. Wood, and Woodland Lakes Trusteeship, Inc.
(Doc. No. 125); Wendy Wexler Horn, Douglas R. Bader, and
Laura Thielmeier Roy (Doc. No. 127); Law Office of Gary G.
Matheny, and Gary Glen Matheny (Doc. No. 129); and Defendant
Woodland Lakes Community Neighborhood Watch (Doc. No. 202)
are DENIED as moot.
 Plaintiffs title the filing as
“Plaintiffs' notice of withdrawal of
Plaintiffs' pending motion to stay proceedings.”
However, the Court will construe the filing as a motion ...