Opinion
Case No. 4:19 CV 1720 RWS
07-22-2019
DEREK THRONEBURG, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff asks the Court to stay his obligation to respond to defendant Valassis' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction until after the Court holds a scheduling conference so that he may propound discovery on the issue of jurisdiction. The motion will be denied as the Court will not set a Rule 16 conference until the pending motions are ruled. Plaintiff has been granted until July 29, 2019, to respond to defendant Charter's motion to dismiss. I will also grant plaintiff until July 29, 2019, to respond to Valassis' motion to dismiss. If he needs jurisdictional discovery, his response shall set out the reasons why discovery is needed and include proposed limited discovery requests for the Court's consideration. Of course, plaintiff remains free to dismiss his federal claims, upon which the Court would remand the remaining claims back to state court.
Plaintiff's response must meaningfully distinguish this case from Judge Bodenhausen's well-reasoned decision in Michael v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2019 WL 1379967, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2019). --------
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time [20] is granted only as follows: plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant Valassis' motion to dismiss [16] by no later than July 29 , 2019 .
/s/_________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 22nd day of July, 2019.