United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on plaintiff Scott Gustafson's
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.
Defendant Bi-State Development Agency of the
Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District opposes the motion
and plaintiff filed a reply memorandum. For the following
reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a fourth amended complaint.
filed this action on December 23, 2015 in the Circuit Court
of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, St. Louis City,
Missouri, asserting claims of public accommodation
discrimination and unlawful discriminatory practices in
violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act
(“MHRA”). (Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed a first
amended petition on April 26, 2016 and a second amended
petition on August 8, 2018. (Docs. 1, 6).
December 10, 2018, the state court granted plaintiff leave to
file a third amended petition (“complaint”) (Doc.
8), which included his previous MHRA claims and two
additional claims: denial of access to governmental services,
programs, and activities in violation of Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
12101, et seq. (“ADA”), and failure to
provide accommodations and access to information in violation
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
§ 794 (“Rehab Act”). Defendant removed this
action on December 12, 2018 on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1).
February 13, 2019, this Court dismissed plaintiff's MHRA
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Docs. 33, 34). A Case Management Order was subsequently
issued, allowing the parties until May 1, 2019 to file
motions to join additional parties or amend pleadings. (Doc.
1, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file
a fourth amended complaint to include three additional
violations under his ADA and Rehab Act claims:
a. Defendant failed to ensure that the platform edges at
MetroLink stations meet ADA requirements for clear visual
b. Defendant failed to ensure that wayfinding markings and
signage for people with visual impairments at its rail
stations, bus transfer centers, and bus stops is in
compliance with the ADA; and
c. Defendant operated a new, non-compliant, real-time
information and trip-planning mobile application, called
proposed fourth amended complaint also seeks to include his
dismissed MHRA claims, stating in a footnote:
“Plaintiff acknowledges that on February 13, 201
this Court dismissed his MHRA Claims . . ., but only includes
the claims for purpose of preserving the issues for potential
appeal.” (Doc. 41-1 n. 2).
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint was filed by the Case Management Order's
deadline to file motions to join additional parties or amend
pleadings, but more than twenty-one days after service of a
motion to dismiss under Rule 15(b), it is governed by the
standard of Rule 15(a)(2), which states, “The court