Cody v. AALCO Wrecking Co.

E.D. Missouri

Cody v. AALCO Wrecking Co.

463 F. Supp. 434, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14125

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri

DecidedNovember 29, 1978

DocketNo. 78-961C(3)

StatusPublished

This text of 463 F. Supp. 434 (Cody v. AALCO Wrecking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cody v. AALCO Wrecking Co., 463 F. Supp. 434, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14125 (E.D. Mo. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiff has filed what is entitled a “Motion to Substantiate Lawsuit With in the Federal Jurisdiction of Racial Discrimination Act. Under the Fourteenth Amendment”. The Court treats the same as a memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff filed this suit pro se seeking damages of $4,000,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that he owns a building on Sarah Street in the City of St. Louis, that such building was condemned by the Board of Building Appeals, and that plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. While such was pending, defendant proceeded to wreck the building. Plaintiff further alleges that he is a black businessman and thus, plaintiff asserts that defendant’s actions were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is the Court’s conclusion that defendant’s motion should be granted. Defendant acted in accordance with a permit issued by the Department of Public Safety, Division of Building and Inspection. While plaintiff perhaps had an appeal pending, the required bond, copies of which were submitted to this Court by plaintiff, is marked void and does not show that it was approved by the court. Plaintiff simply alleges that he is black and that he has been injured. Such allegations are insufficient to state a claim of racial discrimination.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion will be granted and this cause dismissed without prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiff has filed what is entitled a “Motion to Substantiate Lawsuit With in the Federal Jurisdiction of Racial Discrimination Act. Under the Fourteenth Amendment”. The Court treats the same as a memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff filed this suit pro se seeking damages of $4,000,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that he owns a building on Sarah Street in the City of St. Louis, that such building was condemned by the Board of Building Appeals, and that plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. While such was pending, defendant proceeded to wreck the building. Plaintiff further alleges that he is a black businessman and thus, plaintiff asserts that defendant’s actions were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is the Court’s conclusion that defendant’s motion should be granted. Defendant acted in accordance with a permit issued by the Department of Public Safety, Division of Building and Inspection. While plaintiff perhaps had an appeal pending, the required bond, copies of which were submitted to this Court by plaintiff, is marked void and does not show that it was approved by the court. Plaintiff simply alleges that he is black and that he has been injured. Such allegations are insufficient to state a claim of racial discrimination.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion will be granted and this cause dismissed without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 F. Supp. 434, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cody-v-aalco-wrecking-co-moed-1978.