Opinion
4:22-cv-00606-SEP
07-15-2022
NATALIA D. MCKINSTRY, Plaintiff, v. RED BRICK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Natalia McKinstry's Motion to Consolidate and For Time Enlargement. Doc. [8]. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice in part and denied as moot in part.
Factual Background
The dispute between Plaintiff (a Missouri licensed attorney proceeding pro se) and Defendants relates to Plaintiff's leasing of residential property located at 1000 Suite A on Geyer Avenue in Soulard, Missouri. Doc. [1] ¶¶ 4, 20. In the instant motion, Plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule 4.03 to consolidate this case with another case that was removed to the Eastern District of Missouri from St. Louis City Circuit Court and is pending before Judge Autrey. Doc. [8] ¶ 1. Plaintiff also requests that the Court grant her an extension through July 22, 2022, to file her responsive pleading in the case before Judge Autrey. Id. ¶ 2.
The case number in Judge Autrey's case is 4:22-cv-00610-HEA. Doc [8] ¶ 1.
Discussion
Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in support of her motion with argument and citations to authorities, as required by the Court's local rules. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(A) (“Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the moving party must file with each motion a memorandum in support, including relevant argument and citations to any authorities upon which the party relies.”). Accordingly, her motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice to refiling in conformity with the local rules. Vardiman v. United States, 2019 WL 3934676, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 20, 2019) (denying a pro se plaintiff's motion for default judgment because plaintiff, inter alia, failed to file a memorandum in support accompanying the motion); see also Jimenez v. Ervin, 2005 WL 8176458, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 29, 2005) (failure to conform with Rule 4.01(A) is sufficient basis for denial).
Because the cases are not consolidated as a result of this motion, Plaintiff's request of this Court for additional time to file responsive pleadings in the case before Judge Autrey is moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate and For Time Enlargement, Doc. [8], is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension through July 22, 2022, to file a responsive pleading in Case No. 4:22-cv-00610-HEA, id. ¶ 2, is DENIED as moot.