Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Talley v. U.S. Department of Labor

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

January 8, 2020

FERISSA TALLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION (1) STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S “SUGGESTIONS OPPOSING DOL SUGGESTION FOR IN COURT CONFERENCE REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE, ” AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMEDY JUDGE SMITH'S LIES AND CRIMES AND LIFT THE STAY OR DISQUALIFY JUDGE SMITH

          ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE

         Pending is Plaintiff Ferissa Talley's “Motion to Remedy Judge Smith's Lies and Crimes and Lift the Stay or Disqualify Judge Smith.” For the following reasons, the Court denies Talley's “Motion to Remedy Judge Smith's Lies and Crimes and Lift the Stay or Disqualify Judge Smith” (Doc. #17) and strikes Talley's “Suggestions Opposing DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference Requiring Plaintiff's Attendance” (Doc. #19).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Ferissa Talley filed this lawsuit in June 2019 seeking the release of documents from the United States Department of Labor. Doc. #1. The same documents were sought by another individual, Jack Jordan, who previously filed a lawsuit in this Court. Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 18-06129 (W.D. Mo.) (hereinafter, “the Jordan matter”). In the Jordan matter, the Court dismissed some of Jordan's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Jordan's remaining claims. The Jordan matter is now on appeal.

         The day after Talley filed her lawsuit, Defendant moved to stay the case pending disposition of the Jordan matter before the Eighth Circuit. Doc. #4. Talley opposed the motion. Doc. #5. In July 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion to stay. Doc. #7. In October 2019, Jordan entered his appearance as Talley's counsel, and the Court permitted Talley's prior counsel to withdraw. Docs. #8, 11. Talley, now represented by Jordan, then moved to reconsider the Court's decision staying this matter. Doc. #15.[1]The Court denied Talley's motion on November 18, 2019. Doc. #16.

         One day later, Talley filed the pending motion. The motion is titled “Motion to Remedy Judge Smith's Lies and Crimes and Lift the Stay or Disqualify Judge Smith.” Doc. #17. Defendant filed its opposition on December 3, 2019. Doc. #18. On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed two documents: “Plaintiff's Suggestions Opposing DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference Requiring Plaintiff's Attendance” (Doc. #19) and “Plaintiff's Reply Suggestions Supporting Motion to Lift the Stay or Disqualify Judge Smith” (Doc. #20). The Court first addresses “Plaintiff's Suggestions Opposing DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference Requiring Plaintiff's Attendance” before turning to the relief sought in Talley's motion.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Opposition to “DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference”

         In response to Talley's motion, Defendant argued, among other things, that “Talley's pleading is both abusive and baseless. The DOL suggests that the Court set an in-court conference requiring the attendance of both Talley and her attorney to reinforce the rules of pleadings decorum expected of both litigants and counsel.” Doc. #18, at 2 (emphasis in original). In response to this argument only, Talley filed a separate document opposing “DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference.” Doc. #19. Talley's filing argues Defendant suggestion “was essentially an illegal request without [a] motion.” Doc. #19, at 5. Defendant did not file a motion, and the Court does not construe Defendant's filing as a motion. Accordingly, Talley was not allowed to file suggestions in opposition to Defendant's opposition to her motion. See L.R. 7.0(c)(2).

         Instead, Talley was permitted to only file a reply in further support of her motion. L.R. 7.0(c)(3). She filed a reply but also filed suggestions in opposition to Defendant's opposition to her motion, or as she contends, Defendant's “suggestion for in-court conference.” Doc. #19-20. To the extent Talley intended both filings to be considered “replies, ” the Local Rules do not permit two replies. Because Talley did not seek leave to file a separate response to Defendant's opposition to Talley's motion and did not seek leave to file two replies, the Court strikes Talley's “Suggestions Opposing DOL Suggestion for In-Court Conference Requiring Plaintiff's Attendance.” Doc. #19.

         B. Talley's Motion

         (1) Reconsideration

         Talley asks the Court to reconsider its decision imposing a stay but does not provide a procedural basis for her request. Presumably, Talley seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As previously stated by the Court, “[m]otions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010). “Such a motion is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances requiring extraordinary relief.” Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 534 (8th Cir. 2006). Talley does not raise a new basis for the Court to lift the stay, and the Court already addressed her prior arguments. See Docs. #4, 6-7, 15-16. Accordingly, Talley's motion for reconsideration is denied.

         (2) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.