Taylor v. Caplan
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
LAUREN TAYLOR, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01303-MTS ) JULIE CAPLAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Further, Local Rule 2.11 recognizes a “person’s name on a signature block” as a signature only if that person made “[a]n authorized filing . . . through [that] person’s electronic filing account.” The Local Rule goes on to explain that even if a document is electronically filed, if it has been signed by someone “other than an attorney of record, the document must be physically signed.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.11. Here, the pro se Plaintiffs jointly filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Doc. [7]. Each Plaintiff purported to sign the document only through their typed name in the signature blocks. Since neither Plaintiff claims to be an attorney of record, their typed names fail to satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. See, e.g., Dean v. Stobie, 4:24-cv-00074-MTS, 2024 WL 2846673, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 5, 2024). Plaintiffs must physically sign future papers. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, the Court will strike the filings as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). The Court will extend Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Defendant Quality Living, Incorporated’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) and will deny Plaintiffs’ unsigned Motion as moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have through Monday, December 02, 2024, to file any opposition to Defendant Quality Living, Incorporated’s Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. [7], is DENIED as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all of Plaintiffs’ future filings must comply with this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 30th day of October 2024. |) oo UA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Taylor v. Caplan (Taylor v. Caplan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.