Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.

E.D. Missouri

Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.

DecidedDecember 10, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01732

StatusUnknown

This text of Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. (Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.) 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

Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. LANGENDORF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01732-MTS ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On review of this removed case, the Court concludes that a few procedural issues require addressing. Defendant filed an answer, Doc. [9], followed by a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), seeking dismissal of only Count III, Doc. [9]. The filing of an answer followed by a partial motion to dismiss is, at least, procedurally irregular. See Hammer v. Post 4, LLC, 4:24-cv-0105-MTS, 2024 WL 1655391, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2024). In response, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Count III, which purports to unilaterally dismiss Count III without prejudice. Doc. [11]. Courts generally hold, though, that it is improper for a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a single claim. See Paglin v. Saztec Int’l, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1184, 1189 (W.D. Mo. 1993); accord Walker v. State, 158 F.4th 971, 982 (9th Cir. 2025); In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664, 678 (11th Cir. 2023). Plaintiff also filed a Reply to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, Doc. [12], which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit without leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7); see also Irwin v. Zoll Lab’y Servs., LLC, 781 F. Supp. 3d 712, 719 (S.D. Iowa 2025); Cowling v. Deep Vein Coal Co., 183 F.2d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 1950). Given these procedural issues, the Court will require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint for the sake of a clean record. The Court will provide Defendant with the usual time to file its required response to the amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). After Defendant files its required response, the Court will set this matter for a Rule 16 conference. Going forward, the parties should comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in this matter no later than Wednesday, December 24, 2025. Defendant shall have the usual time to file its required response to the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III, Doc. [9], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 10th day of December 2025. ) ll Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH S. LANGENDORF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01732-MTS ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On review of this removed case, the Court concludes that a few procedural issues require addressing. Defendant filed an answer, Doc. [9], followed by a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), seeking dismissal of only Count III, Doc. [9]. The filing of an answer followed by a partial motion to dismiss is, at least, procedurally irregular. See Hammer v. Post 4, LLC, 4:24-cv-0105-MTS, 2024 WL 1655391, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2024). In response, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Count III, which purports to unilaterally dismiss Count III without prejudice. Doc. [11]. Courts generally hold, though, that it is improper for a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a single claim. See Paglin v. Saztec Int’l, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1184, 1189 (W.D. Mo. 1993); accord Walker v. State, 158 F.4th 971, 982 (9th Cir. 2025); In re Esteva, 60 F.4th 664, 678 (11th Cir. 2023). Plaintiff also filed a Reply to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, Doc. [12], which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit without leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7); see also Irwin v. Zoll Lab’y Servs., LLC, 781 F. Supp. 3d 712, 719 (S.D. Iowa 2025); Cowling v. Deep Vein Coal Co., 183 F.2d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 1950). Given these procedural issues, the Court will require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint for the sake of a clean record. The Court will provide Defendant with the usual time to file its required response to the amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). After Defendant files its required response, the Court will set this matter for a Rule 16 conference. Going forward, the parties should comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in this matter no later than Wednesday, December 24, 2025. Defendant shall have the usual time to file its required response to the amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III, Doc. [9], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 10th day of December 2025. ) ll Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kenneth S. Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-s-langendorf-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-si-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack