Allen v. Semi Trucking, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00639
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-0639-MTS ) SEMI TRUCKING, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Doc. [75]. The Court denied, without prejudice, a previous motion by Plaintiff seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. Doc. [70] (motion); Doc. [71] (denial). In doing so, the Court pointed out that Plaintiff cited to the incorrect standard. See Doc. [71] (citing Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining “Rule 16(b)’s good-cause standard governs when a party seeks leave to amend a pleading outside of the time period established by a scheduling order, not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)”)). Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s instant Motion yet again fails to address the proper standard. Doc. [75] (refencing Rule 15(a) and making no mention of “good cause”). Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to show good cause,1 and the Court will deny it. Accordingly,

1 Plaintiff, for the first time, argues in his reply in support of the Motion that there is good cause under Rule 16(b). Doc. [82]. That approach does not suffice. See Jones v. City of St. Louis, 599 F. Supp. 3d 806, 822 (E.D. Mo. 2022) (declining to consider argument raised for the first time in a reply brief); see also Crawford v. Gramex Corp., 208 F.3d 217 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“We decline to consider the arguments Crawford raises for the first time in his reply brief.”). But even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s reply’s arguments, the Court fails to see how he was diligent in seeking to amend his complaint in July based on “newly discovered” facts that were revealed to him in April. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, Doc. [75], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Doc. [85], which in part addressed claims within the proposed third amended complaint, is DENIED without prejudice.” IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitation, Doc. [87], is DENIED as moot. Dated this 3rd day of September 2025. THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

? In light of the denial of leave to further amend the complaint and the denial without prejudice of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Court will allow the parties to file any dispositive motions no later than Friday, September 12, 2025. The parties should ensure any filings comply with the Local Rules and the Second Amended Case Management Order. _2-