Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 1 of 23 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, VINCENT BLOUNT, and )

MILDRED BRYANT, individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE, a Missouri municipal

)

corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Case No. ____________________

CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit is about a municipal government whose focus on generating revenue drives its administration of justice. The defendant in this case is the City of Pagedale, Missouri, (“Pagedale” or the “City”), which has turned the City’s code enforcement and municipal court into revenue-generating machines. Pagedale’s search for revenue has resulted in an unprecedented governmental intrusion into the homes of its residents. Since 2010, Pagedale has increased the number of non-traffic tickets it has levied against its residents by 495%. The City often tickets, or threatens to ticket, residents for things that are not even in the City’s municipal code.
Pagedale’s policy and practice of relying on fines and fees to generate revenue violates the Due Process and Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and exceeds the City’s
-1-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
police powers. In doing so, the City has harmed and continues to harm Pagedale residents and Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant, and others similarly situated. They therefore bring this suit to vindicate their fundamental civil rights, obtain injunctive relief to ensure that their rights will not be violated again, and to request a declaration from this Court that Pagedale’s policies and practices in this regard are unlawful.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 2. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner and Vincent Blount
3. Plaintiff Valarie Whitner resides in Pagedale at 7111 St. Charles Rock Rd. She owns her home.
4. Plaintiff Vincent Blount resides with Whitner in Pagedale. 5. Whitner and Blount have lived in Pagedale for 18 years. 6. Whitner and Blount are longtime partners and have three children together, two of whom they raised in Pagedale. 7. Their eldest child is married and lives in St. Louis City. 8. Their younger two children attend college in the St. Louis area. 9. Whitner is gainfully employed at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. 10. Whitner typically works an 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. shift at the hospital.
-2-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
11. Blount is a former Marine Corps servicemember. 12. Blount is currently unemployed. 13. At his most recent job, Blount normally worked a 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. shift. 14. Whitner and Blount have been ticketed and fined by the City of Pagedale for the condition of their home. 15. They have also received building inspection reports regarding their residence, which explicitly threaten future court summonses or fines, from the City. B. Plaintiff Mildred Bryant 16. Plaintiff Mildred Bryant resides in Pagedale at 1310 Belrue Ave. 17. She is 84 years old, retired, and has lived in Pagedale for 46 years. 18. Bryant raised her children in Pagedale. 19. She is involved in the community and works out three times per week at a local YWCA. 20. Bryant has received a building inspection report regarding her home that explicitly threatens future court summonses or fines from the City of Pagedale. 21. Due to her age, it is difficult for her to make the modifications demanded by the City. C. Defendant City of Pagedale 22. Defendant City of Pagedale is a Missouri municipal corporation. It funds both the code enforcement regime and the municipal court system of the City.
-3-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1
A. The City of Pagedale
23. Pagedale is located in St. Louis County, Missouri.
24. As of 2013, approximately 3,037 people lived in the town.
25. Ninety-three percent of the town’s residents are African-American.
26. As of 2013, about a quarter of the town’s population lives below the poverty line.
27. The City government is constituted by, among other officials, a mayor and a
seven-person Board of Alderpersons. 28. In 2013, Pagedale’s total revenue was $2,016,430.2 29. Of this amount, $356,601, or 17.68%, in revenue came from fines and fees.3 30. Fines and fees are the second-largest source of revenue for the City.4
31. In Pagedale’s FY 2014-15 Budget, the City anticipated receiving $353,000 in
revenue from fine and fees—or roughly $107 for every resident of the town, including infants, the elderly, and the infirm.5
32. Since 2010, Pagedale has increased the number of non-traffic related tickets by
1 The named Plaintiffs make the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to those matters in which they have had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters. 2 Better Together, Public Safety—Municipal Courts 25 (Oct. 2014), http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/BT-Municipal-Courts-Report-Full-Report1.pdf (hereinafter, “Public Safety”). According to Pagedale’s annual operating budget for the fiscal (as opposed to calendar) year of 2013-14, Pagedale’s total revenue was $2,057,766. City of Pagedale, Annual Operating Budget 4 (2014), available at http://media.wix.com/ugd/0d0dc5 4cea0f75d54a414c81aa652d360e5c2e.pdf (hereinafter “Pagedale Budget”). 3 Public Safety at 25. Pagedale’s fiscal, as opposed to calendar, year budget reflects similar income for that time period. In FY 2013-14, Pagedale collected $396,471 in court fines, bond fees, warrant fees, and forfeited bonds. Pagedale Budget at 4. 4 Pagedale Budget at 4. 5 Pagedale Budget at 4. The City also budgeted for a total of $87,000 in additional revenue from bonds forfeited and warrant fees together.
-4-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
495%.6 33. Prior to January 1, 2016, Missouri law limited to 30% the amount of money from
traffic ticket revenues a municipality may have in its operating budget. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.359(1).
34. As of January 1, 2016, Missouri law dropped the amount of money from traffic ticket revenues a municipality may use to fund its operations to 12.5%. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.359(2).
35. Among the things for which the City may fine or imprison Pagedale residents are having a basketball hoop or wading pool in front of the front line of their house (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.080(A)); having a hedge above three feet high in their front yard (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.210(A)(5)); having a dish antenna on the front of their house (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.270); walking on the roadway if there is a sidewalk, and if there is not a sidewalk, not walking on the left side of the roadway (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345.080); not walking on the right side of crosswalks (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345.030); conducting a barbecue in their front yard, unless on a national holiday, and having alcoholic beverages visible within 150 feet of that barbecue (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 210.750); playing in the street (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 210.720(A)); wearing one’s pants below the waist in public (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 210.770); and failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a)).
36. Pagedale also tickets residents for conditions it terms “nuisances,” and which should be subject to abatement proceedings, not tickets or fines: having dead vegetation on their
6 Jennifer S. Mann, Municipalities ticket for trees and toys, as traffic revenues decline, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May
-5-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
property (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 215.010(A)(19)); and having fallen trees, cut shrubs, overgrown vegetation, or weeds more than seven inches in height (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 215.110(A)).
37. In addition, the City regulates things that are not included in its Code, including unpainted foundations, small cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, and unpainted or unstained wood fences.
38. Pagedale even gives itself the power to ticket its residents if their windows in houses facing the street do not have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance, properly maintained and in a state of good repair.” Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b).
39. Pagedale’s tickets do not inform residents what provisions they are accused of violating, despite being labeled as “complaint and information[s].”
40. The tickets sometimes refer to an “ordinance no.” These numbers refer to the enactments, not Code provisions.
41. These enactments sometimes cover many sections of the Code, making it impossible to tell which specific part of the Code the resident has violated, and without providing them with any information about how the resident has violated them.
42. Residents are often also cited for inapplicable parts of the Code. For example, residents are sometimes cited for their properties’ condition under the abandoned property provisions, even though they reside at those properties and the City mails the tickets to residents at the subject properties’ addresses.
43. Unless a penalty is specifically set out in a code provision, the default rule is that a
24, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/3WtqyG.
-6-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
violation is punishable by up to $1,000 in penalties or up to three months in jail, or both. Pagedale, Mo., Code § 100.220(A). B. Pagedale’s Municipal Court
44. Defendants who are issued citations by Pagedale become subject to the City’s municipal court system.
45. In 2013, the cost to operate Pagedale’s municipal court was $90,758, meaning the court provided over a quarter of a million dollars in net revenue to the city ($356,601 minus $90,758).7
46. Pagedale limits its court sessions to every first and third Thursday of the month.8 47. Court proceedings begin on or around 6:30 p.m. on these days. 48. In 2013, the Pagedale Municipal Court heard 5,781 cases, or an average of 241 cases for each twice-monthly evening session.9 49. A defendant may only plead “not guilty” by coming to court. 50. A defendant may plead “guilty” by mail but usually must still come to court to pay the fine. It is, however, unclear as to under what circumstances a defendant may pay by mail. 51. If a defendant pleads “guilty” but cannot pay the fine, the court assigns a new date for him or her to come to court and pay the fine. 52. If a defendant does not come to court when summoned, he or she will likely be subject to an arrest warrant, which is accompanied by additional fines, fees, and mandated court costs.
7 Public Safety at 28. In FY 2013-14, the City spent $103,658 to operate its municipal court. Pagedale Budget at 9. 8 City of Pagedale, Municipal Court, available at http://www.cityofpagedale.com/#!municipal-court/cme6. 9 Public Safety at 34.
-7-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
53. No public defender is present or provided to the defendants at the sessions of the Pagedale Municipal Court.
54. By limiting court hours to two sessions a month, providing few alternatives to appearing in person, failing to provide clear information on where and how to pay a ticket or even the amount of a potential fine for violating the Code—in short, being opaque about how to comply with Pagedale’s court processes—the municipal court system in Pagedale makes it difficult for defendants to readily resolve their cases, often leading to additional fees and fines and the prospect of arrest.
55. The in-person appearance requirement is particularly difficult for low-income workers, single parents, those without access to reliable transportation, and those who have jobs that conflict with an assigned court session. C. The End Result
56. Pagedale’s code enforcement and municipal court system are relied upon to extract money from defendants.
57. Pagedale’s code enforcement system does not react to code violations, but proactively looks for violations in order to generate revenue.
58. The budgeting of an amount the City expects to receive from fines and fees sets a target for code enforcement and the court to reach, regardless of the level of violations actually occurring in the City.
59. The budgeting of an amount the City expects to receive from fines and fees also creates an incentive for the City to ticket residents for petty or harmless violations that should not be subject to ticketing in the first instance.
-8-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
60. The need to generate revenue creates an unconstitutional incentive for Pagedale’s prosecutors and municipal court to convict a defendant, regardless of whether Pagedale personnel respond to this incentive.
61. As such, the need to generate revenue creates a substantial risk of bias and prejudgment.
62. This incentive to convict deprives the named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of the due process of the law. D. The Named Plaintiffs’ Experiences with Pagedale’s Ticketing Machine
63. Each of the named Plaintiffs has been threatened with tickets or actually ticketed by the City, or both.
64. Each of the named Plaintiffs anticipates being threatened with tickets or actually ticketed by the City in the future.
65. The City has demonstrated no indication that it intends to halt its code enforcement policies or change its municipal code to remove code provisions that have led to threats or tickets against the named Plaintiffs in the past.
66. None of the named Plaintiffs believe that they can financially or physically keep up with the demands the City makes upon their property in the time periods the City has given them in the past.
a. Plaintiff Whitner 67. Plaintiff Whitner received a building inspection report threatening her with a court summons if she did not comply with specific demands. 68. The building inspection report gave Whitner 30 days to comply with its demands,
-9-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
which included among other things: “All functional windows need screen and or [sic] storm windows”; “Repaint guttering and down spouts where paint is chipping”; “Remove dead branch out of tree in rear yard”; and “Install rear screen door.”
69. Whitner has also received a ticket, labeled a “complaint and information,” for “house not up to code.”
70. She is unable to financially afford to make the changes to her house the City has demanded in the time periods the City has given her.
71. Whitner has also been arrested for “Building code Violation, contempt, and default” (arrest no. 13-0064).
72. The City scheduled Whitner’s property for a “demolition hearing,” even though, under the Pagedale Code, demolition hearings are reserved for buildings found to be “dangerous” and Whitner’s home is not dangerous at all.
73. After appearing at the demolition hearing represented by counsel, the City eventually conceded her house was not dangerous. The City nonetheless continues to threaten her home with abatement actions and fines.
74. Whitner cannot afford all of the modifications that the City has demanded. 75. She even took out a loan, at 99% APR, to pay the tickets and modifications imposed by the City. b. Plaintiff Blount 76. Plaintiff Blount has been ticketed for building code violations, even though he is not the owner of his home. 77. Blount has been ticketed for having alcohol containers on the property “along with
-10-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
blocks of wood.” 78. Blount used to work between 3 P.M. and 11 P.M. This made it impossible for
him to attend Pagedale’s evening court sessions without missing work. 79. Blount, now unemployed, is struggling to pay off the fines he has received from
the city. He continues to make payments. 80. Blount has been ticketed for their home’s condition allegedly violating
“Ordinance No. 1439,” even though the sections of the Pagedale Code found in this ordinance only apply to abandoned properties, not residences.
c. Plaintiff Bryant 81. Plaintiff Bryant received a building inspection report from the City of Pagedale, threatening a court summons if she did not cure the alleged violations. 82. This building inspection report demanded, among other things, that all Bryant’s windows have blinds, matching curtains, or other such “window treatment[;]” that she remove vegetation from her driveway (referring to weeds growing in cracks in her driveway); and that she cut back other weeds. 83. Bryant is 84, lives alone, and cannot do some of the work required by the City’s building inspection reports and certainly not in the time periods the City has given her. 84. The time periods the City gave Bryant to comply have elapsed, and she now faces the threat of fines or imprisonment for the alleged violations. E. Class Action Allegations 85. Plaintiffs Blount, Whitner, and Bryant bring this action under Civil Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively, the “Ticket and
-11-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
Warning Recipients”) as members of the following proposed plaintiff class: “all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warnings that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the city of Pagedale.”
86. This action meets all the Rule 23(a) prerequisites of maintaining a class action. 87. Numerosity: The proposed class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all members is impracticable. As noted above, in 2013, the Pagedale Municipal Court had 5,781 cases on its docket. Thousands of individuals have been ticketed since 2010, and thousands of individuals will likely be ticketed by the City in the future. 88. Commonality: This action presents questions of law and fact common to the proposed class, resolution of which will not require individualized determinations of the circumstances of any particular plaintiff. Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether the City has a policy, practice, or custom of generating revenue by ticketing individuals for violations of the Pagedale Municipal Code;
b. Whether the City has a policy, practice, or custom of subordinating the objective and neutral administration of justice to the goal of generating revenue;
c. Whether the City has a policy, practice, or custom of limiting court hours, providing few, if any alternatives to appearing in person, and failing to provide clear information about where and how to pay a ticket in order to cause defendants to run afoul of the court’s requirements, and thus result in more fees, fines, and warrants for the defendants’ arrests; -12-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
d. Whether Pagedale’s policymakers adopted or promulgated these policies, or whether these practices are so pervasive and well-settled that they constitute Pagedale custom with the force of law;
e. Whether Pagedale policymakers have actual or constructive knowledge of, and acquiescence in, these customs or policies; and
f. Whether the Ticket and Warning Recipients class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
Common questions of law include, but are not limited to, whether the above-described policies, practices, and customs violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.10
89. Typicality: The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class.
a. The named Plaintiffs’ claims as well as those of the proposed class arise out of the same course of conduct by the City, are based on the same legal theories, and involve the same harms.
b. Additionally, the named Plaintiffs are seeking the same relief for themselves and members of the proposed class.
90. Adequacy of Representation: The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class they seek to represent. There are no conflicts of interest between named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class. The named Plaintiffs will vigorously
10 The named Plaintiffs are not seeking class certification regarding their claims that Pagedale’s ticketing of residents for failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside; failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance”; having unpainted foundations; having small cracks in driveways; having chipped or aging layers of paint; and having unpainted or unstained wood fences violates the Excessive Fines and Due Process Clauses and exceeds the City’s police power.
-13-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
prosecute this action on behalf of the Ticket and Warning Recipients class. 91. The named Plaintiffs and proposed class members will be ably represented,
without cost to them, by the Institute for Justice and local counsel Bryan Cave LLP. Founded in 1991, the Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public-interest law firm that litigates constitutional issues nationwide. The Institute for Justice has particular expertise in protecting the due process and property rights of individuals, including challenging criminal justice programs motivated by the desire to raise revenue. In bringing this action, the Institute for Justice has done extensive work to identify and investigate these claims.
92. Local counsel Bryan Cave LLP was founded more than 140 years ago in St. Louis. It still maintains offices in St. Louis and is now an international law firm with more than 1,000 lawyers and 25 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia. Among other practices, it has a large, sophisticated, and effective federal litigation practice.
93. Pagedale is acting or refusing to act on grounds generally applicable to the Ticket and Warning Recipients class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Ticket and Warning Recipients class as a whole.
94. The declaratory and injunctive claims asserted on behalf of the named Plaintiffs and the Ticket and Warning Recipients class are capable of repetition yet evading review. There is a continuing and substantial public interest in these matters.
-14-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
V. CAUSES OF ACTION Count One
By Plaintiffs Blount, Whitner, and Bryant, on Behalf of Themselves and Members of the Ticket and Warning Recipients Class, for Violation of Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth
in paragraphs 1 through 94 above. 96. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
prohibits judicial officers from having a direct or indirect financial interest in a proceeding, regardless of whether this interest is institutional or personal.
97. The City’s reliance on its civil and criminal code to raise revenue creates an institutional incentive for the City to ticket, convict, and fine defendants, regardless of the nature of an individual’s offense.
98. The City’s institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees creates a conflict between the City’s pecuniary interest and the Municipal Court personnel’s obligation to be, and appear, disinterested and to serve the interests of justice, regardless of whether such personnel actually act to further the City’s institutional, pecuniary interest.
99. The City’s institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees creates an appearance of bias that results in a lack of due process of law in the trial of defendants charged before the Pagedale Municipal Court.
100. The City’s institutional pecuniary interest in raising revenue also creates an unconstitutional risk that irrelevant and impermissible factors can influence the decision to prosecute a defendant or the nature of any plea bargain or negotiated settlement of a civil or
-15-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
criminal enforcement action. 101. The City’s institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees creates a conflict
between the City’s pecuniary interest and the prosecutor’s obligation to be, and appear, disinterested and to serve the interests of justice, regardless of whether the prosecutor actually acts to further the City’s institutional, pecuniary interest.
102. The City’s institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees creates an appearance of bias that results in a lack of due process of law in the trial of defendants charged by the Pagedale city government.
103. Because Pagedale’s policies, practices, and customs have created a situation where prosecutors and municipal court personnel have an incentive to convict and fine defendants, the City has violated, and will continue to violate, the due process rights of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed Ticket and Warning Recipients class.
104. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s actions, the named Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Ticket and Warning Recipients class have suffered irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
105. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of administrating its prosecutorial efforts and its municipal court in order to generate revenue, the named Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Ticket and Warning Recipients class will suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
106. Declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary to remedy the City’s unconstitutional conduct of ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants in order to generate revenue for the City. Without appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, the City’s
-16-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 17 of 23 PageID #: 17
unconstitutional policies and practices will continue. Count Two
By Plaintiffs Blount, Whitner, and Bryant, on Behalf of Themselves, for Violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via 42 U.S.C. §
1983 107. The named Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 106 above. 108. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from imposing a monetary penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the offense it is designed to punish. 109. The City makes the following harmless conditions and activities illegal and subject to fines or imprisonment: failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a)); and failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance” (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b)) and which match. 110. In addition, the City imposes fines and imprisonment, or threatens fines or imprisonment, for harmless activities and conditions that are not mentioned in its Code, including unpainted foundations, small cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, and unpainted or unstained wood fences, and matching curtains or drapes. 111. Any fine imposed by Pagedale for these activities and conditions is excessive because none of these activities or conditions cause any harm to others or to the named Plaintiffs themselves. 112. Instead, Pagedale imposes these fines as a method to generate revenue.
-17-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 18 of 23 PageID #: 18
113. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s actions, the named Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
114. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions, the named Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
115. Declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary to remedy the City’s unconstitutional conduct of ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants for harmless activities. Without appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, the City’s unconstitutional policies and practices will continue.
Count Three By Plaintiffs Blount, Whitner, and Bryant, on Behalf of Themselves, for Violation of Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. § 1983
116. The named Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 115 above.
117. The Due Process Clause prevents the government from declaring that lawful and harmless activities and conditions constitute nuisances when such activities and conditions are not, in fact, nuisances and any harm that could arise from such activities and conditions would be remote and highly speculative.
118. The City makes the following harmless conditions and activities illegal and subject to fines or imprisonment: failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a)); and failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance” (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b))
-18-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 19 of 23 PageID #: 19
and which match. 119. In addition, the City imposes fines and imprisonment, or threatens fines or
imprisonment, for harmless activities and conditions that are not mentioned in its Code, including unpainted foundations, small cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, and unpainted or unstained wood fences.
120. These activities and conditions are not nuisances or violations, and the City cannot abate them or issue fines regarding them, because they do not cause any harm to others or to the named Plaintiffs themselves.
121. Instead, Pagedale treats these activities and conditions as nuisances and code violations merely as a method to generate revenue.
122. Making a harmless activity or condition illegal in order to generate revenue violates the Due Process Clause.
123. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s actions, the named Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
124. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions, the named Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
125. Declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary to remedy the City’s unconstitutional conduct of ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants for harmless activities. Without appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, the City’s unconstitutional policies and practices will continue.
-19-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 20 of 23 PageID #: 20
Count Four By Plaintiffs Blount, Whitner, and Bryant, on Behalf of Themselves, for the City’s Actions
in Excess of Its Police Power via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 126. The named Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 125 above. 127. The police power of the government exists to prevent individuals from harm. 128. The City makes the following harmless conditions and activities illegal and subject to fines or imprisonment: failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a)); and failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance” (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b)), and which match. 129. In addition, the City imposes fines and imprisonment, or threatens fines or imprisonment, for harmless activities and conditions that are not mentioned in its Code, including unpainted foundations, small cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, and unpainted or unstained wood fences. 130. Pagedale’s policy, practice, and custom of treating such harmless activities and conditions as nuisances exceeds the government’s police powers because none of these activities or conditions cause any harm to others or to the named Plaintiffs themselves. 131. Instead, Pagedale treats these harmless activities and conditions as a method to generate revenue. 132. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s actions, the named Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
-20-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 21 of 23 PageID #: 21
133. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions, the named Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.
134. Declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary to remedy the City’s unconstitutional conduct of ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants for harmless activities. Without appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, the City’s unconstitutional policies and practices will continue.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated: A. For certification of the proposed Ticket and Warning Recipients class defined above; B. For a declaration that Pagedale’s systemic policy, practice, and custom of unduly relying on revenue from fines and fees generated by its code enforcement and municipal court system violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; C. For a declaration that Pagedale’s systemic policy, practice, and custom of budgeting for revenue from fines and fees imposed for violations of the Pagedale Municipal Code, and taking actions in order to meet that budgeted amount, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; D. For a declaration that any fine issued for violations pursuant to the following sections of the Pagedale Municipal Code are excessive, in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
-21-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 22 of 23 PageID #: 22
a. Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a) b. Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b) c. And any provisions which could be construed to prohibit unpainted
foundations, cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, unpainted or unstained wood fences, or unmatched blinds; E. For a declaration that any fine issued for violations pursuant to the following provisions of the Pagedale Municipal Code violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: a. Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a) b. Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b) c. And any provisions which could be construed to prohibit unpainted foundations, cracks in driveways, chipped or aging layers of paint, unpainted or unstained wood fences, or unmatched blinds; F. For a declaration that Pagedale’s regulation of the following activities and conditions exceed Pagedale’s police powers: a. Failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(4)(a)) b. Failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance” (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 515.060(A)(3)(b)) c. Having an unpainted foundation d. Having cracks in one’s driveways e. Having chipped or aging layers of paint on the outside of one’s home
-22-

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page: 23 of 23 PageID #: 23

f. And having unpainted or unstained wood fences; G. For an issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining Pagedale from acting in furtherance of policies, practices, or customs that violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or that exceed the City’s police powers; H. For an award of nominal damages in the amount of $1.00; I. For an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable statute or rule, or in equity; and J. For such other and further relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, as this Court may deem just and proper. DATED this 4th day of November, 2015. Respectfully submitted,

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE /s/William R. Maurer William R. Maurer*, WA No. 25451 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 646-9300 Fax: (425) 990-6500 E-mail: wmaurer@ij.org

BRYAN CAVE LLP /s/ J. Bennett Clark J. Bennett Clark (MO Bar No. 30907) One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Telephone: (314) 259-2418 Fax: (314) 552-8418 E-mail: ben.clark@bryancave.com

Joshua House*, CA No. 284856 901 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 Fax: (703) 682-9321 E-mail: jhouse@ij.org

*Pro Hac Vice to be Filed Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-23-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALERIE WHITNER et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
CITY OF PAGEDALE, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

No. 4:15 CV 1655 RWS

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Valerie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant are suing Defendant City

of Pagedale claiming, among other things, that the City’s policy and practice of relying on civil

and criminal fines and fees to generate revenue violates the Due Process and Excessive Fines

Clauses of the United States Constitution and exceeds the City’s police powers. Plaintiffs bring

four claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Count I, Plaintiffs seek class action status for a

proposed class of “all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warnings

that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the city of Pagedale.”

Defendant Pagedale has moved to strike the class allegations from Plaintiffs’ complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Defendant argues that I should strike the class

allegations because Plaintiffs cannot plead the minimum facts necessary to establish the

commonality requirement for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and because the

proposed class’ claims are not sufficiently cohesive under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(f). A motion to strike is a very narrow remedy and is not a substitute for a motion to

dismiss. Striking a party's pleadings is an extreme and disfavored measure. Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th Cir. 1977). There is general judicial agreement that a motion to strike should be denied unless the challenged allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy. N. Face Apparel Corp. v. Williams Pharmacy, Inc., 4:09 CV 2029 RWS, 2010 WL 546928, at *1 (E.D.Mo. Feb. 9, 2010). Moreover, “even when technically appropriate and well-founded, Rule 12(f) motions are not granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.” Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Pope, 2 4057 CV C SOW, 2005 WL 1312975, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 1, 2005) (internal citations omitted).
While Plaintiffs’ proposed class does appear to be quite broad, nothing in Plaintiffs’ complaint is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Nor do the challenged class allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter in controversy. As a result, Defendants’ motion to strike will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Pagedale’s Motion to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Class Action Complaint #[18] is DENIED.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 21 Filed: 12/21/15 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 120

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, VINCENT BLOUNT, and )

MILDRED BRYANT, individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE, a Missouri municipal

)

Corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Cause No.: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS

DEFENDANT CITY OF PAGEDALE’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT IV AND PLAINTIFF MILDRED BRYANT’S CLAIMS FROM PLAINTIFFS’ CIVIL RIGHTS
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Defendant City of Pagedale (“Defendant”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, and, for its Motion to Dismiss Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant’s

Claims from Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Class Action Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), states as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Class Action Complaint challenges Defendant’s ordinance

enforcement and the prosecution and adjudication of ordinance violations in municipal court.

Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner and Vincent Blount allege they have been ticketed or fined for

violations of ordinances pertaining to the condition of their residential property. (See Doc. # 1,

at ¶¶ 14-15, 67-80.) Plaintiff Mildred Bryant alleges she received a warning. (See Doc. # 1, at

¶¶ 20, 81-84.) From this, Plaintiffs allege four counts brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Count I – violations of due process rights of Plaintiffs and a proposed class; Count II – violation

of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; Count III – violations of due process

rights of Plaintiffs only; Count IV – Defendant acted in excess of its police power. (See Doc. #

1

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 21 Filed: 12/21/15 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 121
1.) 2. Count IV should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of any federal law or the U.S. Constitution therein. See Garmon v. Foust, 668 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1982). Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant acted in excess of its police powers is not an issue of federal law, and Plaintiffs do not allege a violation of rights secured by federal law. See XO Mo., Inc. v. City of Md. Heights, 362 F.3d 1023, 1027 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding that a city’s police powers are conferred by the state and not federal law). Accordingly, Count IV fails to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should be dismissed.
3. Furthermore, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff Mildred Bryant’s claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of a justiciable controversy. Plaintiff Bryant alleges she received a building inspection report stating code violations and that she will be summoned to court if she does not correct said violations. (See Doc. # 1, at ¶¶ 81, 84.) Plaintiff Bryant has not, however, alleged that she was summoned to court, ticketed, fined, or that she took any action whatsoever in response to the building inspection report. From this, Plaintiff Bryant lacks standing to challenge (1) the alleged deprivation of due process in the Pagedale municipal court, (2) the “excessiveness” of fines imposed by Defendant (when she has never been fined), or (3) Pagedale’s enforcement of nuisance ordinances because her allegations do not amount to an imminent threat of an “injury in fact” on any of these grounds. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2009); Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 594-95, n.3 (8th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, having only received a warning and having not been subjected to Pagedale’s municipal court, Plaintiff Bryant’s claims are not ripe for determination because her injuries are not “certainly impending” but rather are “contingent on
2

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 21 Filed: 12/21/15 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 122
future possibilities,” namely, whether she will be subjected to the Pagedale municipal court, whether she will be treated unfairly and illegally in the Pagedale municipal court, and whether she will be fined. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist. v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 234 F.3d 1032, 1039 (8th Cir. 2000); Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 10 v. City of Peculiar, 345 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir. 2003).
4. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4.01, Defendant has separately filed a Memorandum of Law in this Motion, and fully incorporates said Memorandum herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendant City of Pagedale respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant’s Claims from Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Class Action Complaint, enter an Order dismissing Count IV for failure to state a claim and dismissing Plaintiff Mildred Bryant’s claims for lack of a justiciable controversy, and for such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
BEHR, McCARTER & POTTER, P.C.
By: /s/ Timothy J. Reichardt Timothy J. Reichardt, #57684MO Andrew T. Tangaro, #64193MO Joseph C. Vitale, #67336MO 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3800 Facsimile: (314) 862-3953 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com Email: atangaro@bmplaw.com Email: jvitale@bmplaw.com Attorneys for Defendant City of Pagedale
3

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 21 Filed: 12/21/15 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the 21st day of December, 2015, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served upon all parties of record via the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Timothy J. Reichardt
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF PAGEDALE,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) No. 4:15 CV 1655 RWS ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant filed suit against Defendant City of Pagedale, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their federal constitutional rights. Defendant has moved to dismiss Count IV for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendant has also moved to dismiss Bryant’s claims in Counts I, II, and III for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Bryant lacks standing to bring these claims and that her claims are not ripe. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). I will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IV and deny its motion to dismiss Bryant’s claims.
Background Plaintiffs Whitner, Blount, and Bryant reside in Pagedale, which is located in St. Louis County, Missouri. The City of Pagedale is a Missouri municipal

corporation. Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that the City is a “ticketing machine” that unduly relies on revenue from fines and fees generated by its code enforcement and municipal court system, incentivizing the City to ticket, convict, and fine Pagedale residents for lawful, harmless activities and conditions. Plaintiffs allege the City subjects Pagedale residents to fines and imprisonment for code violations in their homes that include, for example, failing to install screens on every door and window opening to the outside, hang drapes or blinds that match and “are neatly hung, in a presentable appearance,” repair driveway cracks or chipped or aging paint on a home’s exterior, or paint foundations and wood fences. Plaintiffs also allege that the City limits court access and makes it difficult for residents to resolve their cases, resulting in more fees, fines, and threats of arrest.
Whitner and Blount allege they have been ticketed and fined for the condition of their home and threatened with future court summonses and fines. Whitner also alleges she has been arrested for “Building code Violation, contempt, and default.” Whitner and Blount claim these demands and fines have caused them significant financial hardship. Bryant alleges she has been threatened with a court summons and fines for conditions in her home, including the lack of “blinds, matching curtains, or other such ‘window treatment’” and the presence of weeds in the cracks in her driveway. Bryant alleges she is 84, lives alone, and cannot do some of the work the City requires.
2

Plaintiffs bring four claims for relief under section 1983. Count I alleges a number of harms from “the City’s institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees,” claiming this reliance incentivizes “the City’s unconstitutional conduct of ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants in order to generate revenue,” which violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process rights of the Plaintiffs and a proposed class. Count II alleges the City imposes and threatens fines for “harmless activities and conditions,” in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Count III alleges the “Due Process Clause prevents the government from declaring that lawful and harmless activities and conditions constitute nuisances when such activities and conditions are not, in fact, nuisances” and the City’s “policy, practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions” violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Count IV alleges the City’s “policy, practice, and custom of treating [] harmless activities and conditions as nuisances” and “fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions” exceeds the City’s police powers and causes “irreparable injury to [Plaintiffs’] constitutional rights.”
Defendant moves to dismiss Count IV under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiffs have not pleaded a cognizable section 1983 claim because they have not identified a specific right secured by federal law or the U.S. Constitution that the City has violated by allegedly acting in excess of its police powers. Defendant also
3

moves to dismiss Bryant’s claims in Counts I, II, and III under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Bryant lacks standing and her claims are not ripe.
Timeliness of the Motion Plaintiffs first argue I should deny Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count IV because the motion is untimely. Technically, both the 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) requests are untimely. Rule 12(b) motions “must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Defendant filed its answer on December 7, 2015, and filed its motion to dismiss on December 21, 2015. But Rule 12(h)(2) allows me to construe an untimely 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), which I will do. See NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh, 777 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2015). And Rule 12(h)(3) states that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Motion to Dismiss Count IV The same standard governs motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, I must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006). While a court must accept factual allegations as true, it is not required to “blindly accept the legal
4

conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts.” Westcott, 901 F.2d at 1488. “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “The purpose of this threshold pleading requirement is to allow a defendant to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint so as to eliminate those actions which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and designed to fail, thereby sparing litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity.” Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. B & W Sensors, LLC, 2014 WL 1272509, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 27, 2014) (quotation marks omitted).
Defendant argues Plaintiffs have failed to allege a necessary element of a section 1983 claim: a violation of any right secured by federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs bring Count IV “for the City’s Actions in Excess of Its Police Power via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” They allege that the City makes illegal and punishes a number of “harmless conditions and activities,” such as failing to have a screen on every door and window opening to the outside and failing to have drapes or blinds “which are neatly hung.” Plaintiffs allege that the City’s “policy, practice, and custom of treating such harmless activities and conditions as nuisances exceeds the government’s police powers because none of these activities or conditions cause any harm to others or to the named Plaintiffs themselves” and
5

that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions, the named Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury to their constitutional rights.” Plaintiffs do not identify any right secured by federal law or the Constitution that the City violates by acting in excess of its police powers, only alleging the City’s actions in excess of its police powers injure “their constitutional rights.”
“Section 1983 does not confer substantive rights but merely provides a means to vindicate rights conferred by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Gatlin ex rel. Estate of Gatlin v. Green, 362 F.3d 1089, 1093 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see also Gatlin, 362 F.3d at 1093 (“Section 1983 requires a claimant to identify the particular right that has been violated.”). In Count IV, Plaintiffs repeat the factual allegations of Count III but fail to “identify any violation of a right protected under the Constitution or federal law-an essential element of a section 1983 claim.” Gatlin, 362 F.3d at 1093.1 As a result, I will dismiss Count IV.
1 While federal pleading rules “do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted,” Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 135 S. Ct. 346, 346 (2014) (per curiam), Plaintiffs still must plead facts that provide the basis for
6

Motion to Dismiss Bryant’s Claims
Defendant also moves for dismissal of Bryant’s claims under Rule 12(b)(1)
on standing and ripeness grounds. A standing argument implicates Rule 12(b)(1)
because “if a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the district court has no subject-matter
jurisdiction” over its claims. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,
645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011). Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that serves
“‘to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from
entangling themselves in abstract disagreements.’” Pub. Water Supply Dist. No.
10 of Cass Cnty., Mo. v. City of Peculiar, 345 F.3d 570, 572 (8th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)).
Standing and ripeness can be closely related. Mo. Roundtable for Life v.
Carnahan, 676 F.3d 665, 674 (8th Cir. 2012). Here, both arguments rely on the
same premise, namely, that Bryant has not pleaded a sufficient injury or threat of
a legally cognizable theory of liability. The first step in a section 1983 analysis is to “‘isolate the precise constitutional violation with which [the defendant] is charged.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979)). Plaintiffs’ Count IV does not identify a constitutional right violated by the City’s actions. In their memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs cite Pottinger v. City of Miami for the proposition that ordinances may be unconstitutionally overbroad when those ordinances regulate conduct beyond the reach of the state’s police powers, which suggests a due process argument. See Pottinger, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1575‒76 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (explaining courts have overturned overbroad statutes, including those that reach conduct beyond the police power of the state to regulate, on due process grounds). But Plaintiffs do not plead a due process violation in Count IV, and even if I were to liberally construe Count IV as alleging a due process violation, given that Count IV only repeats the factual allegations from Count III and does not rely on any additional factual allegations, construing it to also repeat the legal theory from Count III would render Count IV redundant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”).
7

imminent injury to challenge the City’s alleged deprivation of due process in municipal court, excessiveness of fines, or enforcement of nuisance ordinances. Defendant argues that as Bryant has only alleged that she has received a warning and not that she has been summoned to court, ticketed, fined or has changed her behavior in response to the warning, she has not alleged that she has suffered any actual injury or faces an “imminent” threat of a “certainly impending” injury. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492‒93 (2009) (standing); Parrish v. Dayton, 761 F.3d 873, 875‒76 (8th Cir. 2014) (ripeness).
“A court deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) must distinguish between a ‘facial attack’ and a ‘factual attack.’” C.S. ex rel. Scott v. Mo. State Bd. of Educ., 656 F.Supp.2d 1007, 1011 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). “In the first instance, the court restricts itself to the face of the pleadings, and the nonmoving party receives the same protections as it would defending against a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Defendant makes a facial attack in this case.
“The ‘irreducible constitutional minimum of standing’ is that a plaintiff show (1) an ‘injury-in-fact’ that (2) is ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant’ and (3) is ‘likely . . . [to] be redressed by a favorable decision’ in court.” ABF, 645 F.3d at 958 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). Defendant argues Bryant lacks constitutional
8

standing to bring her claims because she cannot show an injury-in-fact.2 “An ‘injury-in-fact’ is ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Id. at 959 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). “In assessing whether the plaintiff has alleged a sufficiently particularized and concrete injury, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Computer Servs. (ACS), Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005).
The Complaint includes a number of allegations relevant to Bryant’s claim that she has been injured or faces an imminent threat of injury, including the following: she has received a building inspection report regarding her home that explicitly threatens a court summons or fines if she fails to meet a number of demands. She is 84, lives alone, and cannot do some of the work required by the building inspection report. The time periods the City gave Bryant to comply have elapsed, and she now faces the threat of fines or imprisonment for the alleged violations. Her co-plaintiffs have been ticketed and arrested for building code violations, “house not up to code,” and “contempt” and “default.” Since 2010, the City has increased the number of non-traffic related tickets by 495%. The City’s
2 Defendant does not challenge Bryant’s standing on the second or third prongs of the analysis, traceability and redressability. “[W]hen government action . . . is challenged by a party who is a target or object of that action, . . . there is ordinarily little question that the action . . . has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing . . . the action will redress it.” Monson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 589 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir.2009) (quotation marks omitted).
9

policies make it difficult for defendants to readily resolve their cases, often leading to additional fees and fines and the prospect of arrest. The City has given no indication it intends to halt its code enforcement policies or change its municipal code to remove the provisions being applied against Bryant.
Assuming Bryant’s factual allegations are true, and drawing all inferences in her favor, as I must do at this stage, I find she has alleged a sufficient injury or threat of injury to establish constitutional standing. While Bryant must allege a threat of injury that is both real and immediate, she “‘does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief.’” Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Correction, 103 F.3d 637, 643‒44 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994)).
Bryant alleges she has been individually threatened with a court summons and fines and must either make changes to her home that she is unable to make— and should not be required to make—or risk fines and imprisonment for failing to make the changes. See Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff suffers Article III injury when [she] must either make significant changes . . . to obey the regulation, or risk a[n] . . . enforcement action by disobeying the regulation.” (quotation marks omitted)). She alleges that the time periods given her to comply have elapsed and that she faces the threat that the City will summon her at any time to a court that systematically deprives people of their
10

due process rights and unconstitutionally ticket, convict, and fine her. See Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 471‒72 (6th Cir. 1999) (explaining that as a statute allowed law enforcement to release offender registry information at any time, plaintiff’s status as a convicted offender “arguably result[ed] in an injury,” even though his information had not been released, “because he face[d] a specific threat of being subject to the release of registry information every day”). Bryant alleges that the City has greatly increased the number of non-traffic related tickets it has issued in recent years and that her co-plaintiffs have been ticketed for similar code violations. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (finding threats of prosecution against plaintiff and prosecution of his companion for the same conduct demonstrated plaintiff’s “concern with arrest has not been ‘chimerical’” (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 508 (1961)). As a result, Bryant has alleged a sufficient threat of injury to satisfy constitutional standing requirements.
For these same reasons, I also find Bryant’s claims are ripe. Defendant argues any injury to Bryant is not certainly impending but rather is “contingent on future possibilities,” see Peculiar, 345 F.3d at 573, namely, whether she will be summoned to court, treated unfairly, or fined. A ripeness inquiry requires consideration of the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the harm to the parties that would result from denial of judicial review at this stage. Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000). As
11

explained above, Bryant’s claims present a dispute that is “definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.” Id. Harm includes the “heightened uncertainty and resulting behavior modification that may result” from forcing Bryant to wait until the threat of a summons or fine is realized. See id. Given the nature of Bryant’s allegations, the only contingency remaining is whether the City will take the enforcement actions against Bryant it has threatened to take. Bryant’s claims are fit for judicial review.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Pagedale’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant’s Claims from Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights Class Action Complaint #[21], as construed in part as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count IV of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed. Defendant’s Motion is otherwise denied.
________________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of March, 2016.
12

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 1 of 23 PageID #: 680
Exhibit 1
to the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and for Entry of an Order for Notice and Hearing
Proposed Consent Decree

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 2 of 23 PageID #: 681

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, VINCENT BLOUNT, and )

MILDRED BRYANT, individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Civil Case No. 4:15-cv-01655-RWS

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE, a Missouri municipal

)

corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree is made and agreed upon by and between plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Plaintiffs”), and defendant the city of Pagedale (the “City”). Plaintiffs and the City shall jointly be referred to as the “Parties.” A. Introduction
1. Plaintiffs commenced this action against the City on November 4, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
2. Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleged that the City’s policies and practices regarding the enforcement and adjudication of the City’s municipal code violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The City has disputed that such rights have been violated by its practices.
3. The Parties agree that those ticketed or threatened with ticketing by the City for 1

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 3 of 23 PageID #: 682
violations of the Pagedale Municipal Code (the “Code”) should receive constitutionally sufficient process and that such individuals should not be subject to excessive fines.
4. The Parties desire to avoid expending further time and expense and resolve all matters raised by this litigation.
5. The Parties recognize, and this Court, by entering this Consent Decree, finds that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and that it is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. B. Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201(a).
7. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. C. Effective Date
8. This Consent Decree shall be effective the date this Court enters it, or a motion to enter the Consent Decree is granted, whichever occurs first, as recorded on this Court’s docket (the “Effective Date”).
9. This Consent Decree shall not take effect until this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), approves this Consent Decree as full settlement and release of each and every claim against the City alleged by Plaintiffs, enters a judgment, and “So Orders” this Consent Decree. D. Class Definition—Settlement Class
10. This action shall be certified as a class action only with respect to Count One of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
2

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 4 of 23 PageID #: 683
11. The plaintiff class shall be defined as “all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warnings that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the City of Pagedale.” E. Reform of the Municipal Court Practices and City Prosecutions
12. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, the City shall develop and implement all necessary ordinances and policies as described herein to ensure that any individual ticketed by the City and appearing before the Pagedale Municipal Court (a “defendant”) is afforded constitutionally sufficient process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Such ordinances and policies shall incorporate the following provisions and requirements set forth below.
13. For any case initiated after January 1, 2010, in which a defendant has made payments to the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court that exceed the initial amount of the fine for the alleged violation, including any payments for associated fines resulting from a failure to appear, the City shall dismiss all such fines and fees in excess of the initial fine and close the case without further collections. This dismissal shall include all cases dismissed “on payment of costs” where fines and fees remain outstanding. The City shall do so unilaterally and without requiring the defendant to appear in court or take any other action whatsoever. The City shall inform, via first-class mail, all defendants in such cases that they are no longer required to pay the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court any amount for those past violations.
14. For all cases initiated by the City after January 1, 2010, the City shall decline to prosecute all unresolved or open cases not yet adjudicated and all warrants associated with those cases shall be withdrawn. However, the Pagedale Municipal Prosecutor may continue a case and
3

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 5 of 23 PageID #: 684
maintain a municipal arrest warrant in a manner consistent with the terms of this Consent Decree if he or she finds good cause to continue prosecution. As used in this paragraph, “good cause” means that the Pagedale Municipal Prosecutor has a legally sufficient or substantial reason to continue prosecution.
15. The City shall eliminate, on its own volition and unilaterally, all pending charges, fines, and fees associated with any citation for Failure to Appear in Municipal Court (Pagedale, Mo., Code § 125.260) without requiring a defendant to make any payment, appear in court, or take any other action. The City shall inform, via first-class mail, all defendants in such cases of the elimination of such charges, fines, and fees. The City shall also inform any collection or credit agency with whom the City communicates regarding collections that it has eliminated such charges, fines, and fees.
16. The City shall maintain a list, which it shall publicly post, of the amount of each fine for any municipal ordinance violations for which a fine is allowed under Missouri law. The City shall post this list on its website and make a hard copy available to each defendant appearing before the Pagedale Municipal Court.
17. All citations, summonses, arrest notification forms, and other charging documents used or issued by the City shall provide all defendants with the following information: (i) the charges brought against them, including the specific ordinance the City alleges the defendant has violated, (ii) the potential penalty for conviction (including the amount of any fine), (iii) options for resolving the charge, (iv) all pending deadlines, (v) the date and time of any court session at which the defendant must appear, and (vi) the procedure for seeking a continuance. Any defendant who receives a citation, summons, arrest notification, or other charging document from
4

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 6 of 23 PageID #: 685
the City shall have the right to inspect and receive a copy, free of charge, of any ordinance the City alleges the defendant has violated. The defendant may only request such ordinance from the City at the Pagedale City Hall during its normal hours of operation.
18. At the beginning of every session of the Pagedale Municipal Court, the City shall provide to each defendant a handout substantially in the form of the document entitled “Your Municipal Court,” attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit A.
19. Upon conviction or entry of a guilty plea, the City shall provide to each defendant a handout explaining how to sign up to pay, in installments, any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court. This handout may be combined into one document with the “Your Municipal Court” handout referred to in Section E.18 above, so long as the content of both documents remains substantially the same in the combined version.
20. The City shall issue a receipt for every payment it receives for any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court. Each receipt shall contain, at a minimum, (i) the amount of the payment received, (ii) the specific violation to which the payment is to be applied, identified by the date of the offense and the specific ordinance violation (as well as any other information, such as the case number associated with the violation, which the City, in its discretion, may include), and (iii) the amount the defendant still owes for that violation.
21. At a minimum, the City shall hold court sessions on the following schedule each month: One session to begin and end between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Prevailing Time, Monday through Friday, and one session to occur in the evening, to begin at or around 6 p.m., Central Prevailing Time, Monday through Friday.
22. Any individual cited by the City shall be given, at the time the City issues the
5

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 7 of 23 PageID #: 686
citation, the option to choose whether to appear at a day or evening session of the Pagedale Municipal Court. In the event that such practice results in a large disparity in the number of cases on one of the dockets, the City may, when reasonably necessary to balance to load of the dockets, assign cases to a docket regardless of the choice of the individual cited. Similarly, and also subject to the City’s ability to make docket assignments when reasonably necessary to balance the number of cases on the dockets in the event of a large disparity in the number of cases on the dockets, any defendant requesting a continuance shall be given the option to continue the hearing either at a day or evening session of the court.
23. The City shall not use municipal arrest warrants as a means of collecting civil court debt. The City denies that this is currently its policy or practice.
24. Before it imposes any penalty on any defendant for failure to pay any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall hold a contempt hearing. This contempt hearing shall include a determination by the Pagedale Municipal Court of the defendant’s ability to pay any fine or fee. As part of the ability to pay determination, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall affirmatively inquire as to a defendant’s capacity to pay prior to imposing a penalty for failure to pay. A defendant may demonstrate an inability to pay by completing a standard affidavit under penalty of perjury. Such an affidavit shall be prima facie evidence of the defendant’s inability to pay and any defendant submitting such an affidavit shall be adjudicated unable to pay. Upon such a determination, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall proportion all penalties to the financial resources of the defendant. Included in the ability to pay determination shall be an express inquiry by the Pagedale Municipal Court into any documented fines and fees owed by the defendant to other municipal courts.
6

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 8 of 23 PageID #: 687
25. The Pagedale Municipal Court shall not sentence any defendant to incarceration or confinement unless that defendant is either (i) represented by counsel, or (ii) knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and on the record waived the right to counsel. All defendants facing a sentence of incarceration or confinement shall be informed orally by the Pagedale Municipal Court, as well as in the “Your Municipal Court” sheet referred to in Section E.18 above, that they are entitled to the appointment of counsel at no cost. The “Your Municipal Court” sheet shall explain the process by which counsel shall be appointed for any defendant entitled to an attorney.
26. The City shall not penalize defendants for failure to appear for either minor traffic violations or municipal ordinance violations, as those terms are defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.350 (as that statute may be amended from time to time).
27. The Pagedale Municipal Court shall not conduct more than seven (7) trials in any single session of the court. If the number of trials in a single session exceeds seven (7), the City shall schedule a third session, exclusively for conducting trials, within thirty (30) days of the date on which the surplus trials were initially scheduled.
28. The City shall revise its online payment system to allow any defendant to pay any fines and fees resulting from a minor traffic violation or a municipal ordinance violation, as those terms are defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.350 (and as those terms may be amended by statute from time to time). F. Municipal Code Revisions
29. The City shall take the following actions: a. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Effective Date, the City shall repeal: Chapter 215 (entitled “Nuisances”), Articles I and III; and, Chapter
7

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 9 of 23 PageID #: 688
515, Article I (“Minimum Housing Standards”) of the Code and replace such chapters with an ordinance adopting, or ordinances substantially in the form of, the St. Louis County Property Maintenance Code, Chapter 1110 Title XI, Public Works and Building Regulations—Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code, Year 2009 Edition (Ordinance No. 24,440, Approved July 14, 2010); b. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, the City shall repeal, and shall not reenact, the following ordinances: Pagedale, Mo., Code § 210.750 (regarding barbeques); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 210.770 (prohibiting wearing pants below the waist in public); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345.030 (regarding walking on the left side of a crosswalk); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345.080 (regarding walking on a roadway); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.080(A) (regarding basketball hoops and wading pools); and Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.270 (prohibiting a dish antenna on the front of houses). 30. The City shall ensure that any provision of the Code repealed or modified pursuant to this Consent Decree shall remain repealed or modified and shall not be replaced with any similar ordinances or policies, whether formal or informal. 31. The City shall only issue citations for violations of specific provisions of the Code. The City shall cease ticketing, and shall cease threatening to ticket, individuals for conditions not specifically mentioned in the Code. The City shall dismiss all outstanding cases for violations of such conditions. The City shall provide written notice, via first-class mail, to all defendants in such cases of such dismissal.
8

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 10 of 23 PageID #: 689
32. The City shall dismiss all outstanding citations and cases for the violation of any ordinance that is modified or repealed, in whole or in part, by the terms of this Consent Decree. The City shall provide written notice, via first-class mail, to all recipients of such citations or defendants in such cases of such dismissal. G. Amnesty
33. The City shall dismiss each, any, and all outstanding citations, fines, fees, and warrants for the named plaintiffs. Furthermore, the City shall take no further action on any warning or code inspection report issued to such named plaintiffs prior to the Effective Date. H. Enforcement
34. In order to ensure compliance with this Consent Decree, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with the following documents and information.
35. The City shall provide Plaintiffs with the following documents and information on an annual basis within sixty days (60) of completion:
a. An audited financial statement, compliant with Government Accounting Standards Board standards, for each fiscal year;
b. The approved, final budget showing forecasted revenue and expenditures by fiscal year;
c. Any reports provided by the City to the Missouri State Auditor pursuant to Senate Bill 5 or Senate Bill 572;
d. Any reports provided by the City to the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator, including the Municipal Division Summary Reporting Form;
e. A municipal court statistics report including statistics on active cases and
9

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 11 of 23 PageID #: 690
fines and fees collected; and f. Any copies of issued financial or management performance audits and
related corrective action plans prepared by or on behalf of the City. 36. The City shall provide the Plaintiffs with the following documents and
information within sixty (60) days of the end of each fiscal quarter: a. Quarterly interim budget reports reflecting year-to-date revenues and expenditures as compared with budgeted amounts; and b. Records of collections by the Pagedale Municipal Court.
37. The City will provide the Plaintiffs any findings or reports issued by the Missouri State Auditor concerning the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court within sixty (60) days of the City becoming aware of the same.
38. The City shall provide such reports for five (5) years following the Effective Date. 39. Within five (5) years of the Effective Date, at Plaintiffs’ written request, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with information reasonably necessary to demonstrate the City’s performance of its obligations under this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs’ written request must be reasonable and Plaintiffs’ request shall not be more frequent than once every six (6) months. 40. If Plaintiffs reasonably believe that the City is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall, by written notice, call a meeting with the City’s counsel to be held at a mutually agreeable time and place within thirty (30) days of the request to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute. The City’s counsel shall attend such a meeting. 41. In the event that counsel for the City and counsel for Plaintiffs cannot come to an
10

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 12 of 23 PageID #: 691
agreement that resolves the claimed violations, Plaintiffs may move this Court, pursuant to Rule 70 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable rule or procedure, for an order enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree and any other enforcement and implementation mechanisms as may be necessary or appropriate. If this Court issues such an order, this Court may, in its discretion, award Plaintiffs’ counsel their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with obtaining such order.
42. This Consent Decree constitutes final relief entered by this Court and is enforceable through this Court’s contempt powers. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes and may issue such orders as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce this Consent Decree.
43. The Parties may jointly agree to make changes, modifications, and amendments to this Consent Decree, which shall be effective if approved by this Court.
44. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Consent Decree, including in collective bargaining. Each party shall notify the other of any legal challenge to this Consent Decree, whether such challenge arises in a court, a union, or an administrative proceeding or otherwise. If any provision of this Consent Decree is challenged in any state or municipal court, the Parties shall agree to consent to removal to Federal Court.
45. The City shall require compliance with this Consent Decree by its respective officers, employees, agents, agencies, assigns, or successors. I. FRCP 23(e) Hearing
46. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall make a motion to this Court for preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and for entry of an Order for Notice and Hearing. Such motion shall request
11

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 13 of 23 PageID #: 692
this Court set a date for a hearing to determine if the resolution of this matter is fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Such motion shall also request that this Court determine that sufficient and adequate notice of the hearing consists of (i) the City posting a Notice of Hearing at the City’s City Hall and Municipal Court; (ii) the City posting a Notice of Hearing on the City’s website; and (iii) publication of the Notice of Hearing by the City twice within a three-week period in each of the following publications: The St. Louis American; The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The Notice of Hearing shall be in the form attached as Exhibit B to this Consent Decree. J. Release
47. As of the Effective Date, all claims raised by the Plaintiffs against the City shall be resolved with prejudice and all remedies sought in the Complaint concerning such claims shall be replaced by the provisions of this Consent Decree.
48. The Parties shall each bear their own fees, expenses, and costs with respect to all claims raised by the Plaintiffs in the Complaint. K. Miscellaneous Provisions
49. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect until this Court, upon the motion of either party, determines that the provisions are no longer necessary to ensure that the City’s policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards.
50. The Parties have both participated in the drafting of this Consent Decree. As such, any ambiguity in this Consent Decree shall not be construed against either party.
51. Any notice or reporting required by or made pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree shall be sent by both first-class mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail to:
12

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 14 of 23 PageID #: 693
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Attn: William R. Maurer 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760 Bellevue, WA 98004 Email: wmaurer@ij.org
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Attn: Joshua House 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Email: jhouse@ij.org
BRYAN CAVE LLP Attn: Barbara Smith One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Email: Barbara.Smith@bryancave.com
FOR THE CITY:
BEHR, McCARTER & POTTER, P.C. Attn: Timothy Reichardt 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com
SJALTON LAW, LLC Attn: Sam J. Alton 7582 Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63119 Email: sam@stlinjured.com
Any party may change the above-designated addressee or address by written notice to the other
party.
13

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 15 of 23 PageID #: 694

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:

___________________________________________ William R. Maurer*, WSBA No. 25451 Date Institute for Justice 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 646-9300 Fax: (425) 990-6500 Email: wmaurer@ij.org *Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Counsel for Plaintiffs

__________________________________________

Timothy J. Reichardt, No. 57684MO

Date

Behr, McCarter & Potter, P.C.

7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400

St. Louis, MO 63105

Telephone: (314) 862-3800

Fax: (314) 862-3953

Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com

Counsel for Defendant City of Pagedale

SO ORDERED: __________________________________ Rodney W. Sippel United States District Judge Date: _____________________________
14

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 16 of 23 PageID #: 695
Exhibit A
to the Consent Decree
"Your Municipal Court"

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 17 of 23 PageID #: 696

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 18 of 23 PageID #: 697

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 19 of 23 PageID #: 698

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 20 of 23 PageID #: 699
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE
Whitner et al. v. City of Pagedale
Case No. 4:15-cv-01655-RWS
TO ALL PERSONS WHO, AT ANY TIME SINCE JANUARY 1, 2010, HAVE RECEIVED WARNINGS THAT THEY MAY RECEIVE TICKETS, HAVE BEEN TICKETED, OR WILL BE TICKETED BY THE CITY OF PAGEDALE:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.
***************
SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
1. Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant (the “Named Plaintiffs”) filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri entitled Whitner et al. v. City of Pagedale, Case No. 4:15-cv01655 (the “Action”). The Named Plaintiffs alleged in Count One of the Action (“Count One”) that the city of Pagedale’s (the “City”) policies and practices regarding the enforcement and adjudication of the City’s municipal code violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Count One alleged that the City financed itself by identifying, ticketing, prosecuting, convicting, and fining individuals to raise money for the City’s treasury. The Named Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the class for this alleged violation.
2. The City denied and continues to deny the allegations and claims in the Action.
3. The Named Plaintiffs and the City (together, the “Parties”) participated in extensive arms-length negotiations to resolve the Action, including written, telephonic, and inperson negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, the Parties have proposed a written consent decree (the “Consent Decree”) that settles and resolves on a class-wide basis any and all claims in the Action, that occurred after January 1, 2010, and up to upon the date the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “District Court”) enters the Consent Decree, or a motion to enter the Consent Decree is granted, whichever occurs first, as recorded on the District Court’s docket (the “Effective Date”).
4. On or about February 2, 2018, the District Court provisionally approved all terms of the Consent Decree, finding them to be sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant issuance of this Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree.
TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE
5. The Class. The Named Plaintiffs propose to settle the Action pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree that will be binding upon all class members, which the Consent Decree
1

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 21 of 23 PageID #: 700
defines as “all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warnings that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the City of Pagedale” (the “Class”).
6. Provisions of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree implements changes that will ensure that defendants in the Pagedale Municipal Court (the “Municipal Court”) receive constitutionally sufficient process. The Consent Decree also provides for the repeal of certain provisions of the Code and, in some cases, replacement by provisions of the St. Louis County Property Maintenance Code. The details are contained in the Consent Decree, which is available at the following website: www.cityofpagedale.com/_______. In general, the Consent Decree requires the City to take certain actions with respect to the following, as all set forth in greater detail in the Consent Decree:
• With respect to the Pagedale Municipal Court, the City will: dismiss and close cases (and related fines and fees) in which a defendant has already made payments to the Municipal Court which exceed the amount of the original fine (including amounts resulting from an associated failure to appear); decline to prosecute all unresolved or open cases unless the Pagedale Municipal Prosecutor finds good cause to continue prosecution; eliminate all pending charges, fines, and fees associated with any citation for failure to appear; publicly post and distribute to all defendants a list of all fines for municipal code violations for which a fine is permitted under Missouri law; ensure that citations issued provide certain specific information concerning the citation and resulting municipal Court case; provide specific information at each Municipal Court session explaining the defendant’s rights and the procedures of the Court and payment methods; issue receipts for payment of fines and fees that indicates the amount paid, the specific violation to which the payment is to be applied, and the amount the defendant still owes for that violation; ensure that a hearing is conducted before a defendant is penalized for failing to pay a fine or fee; establish an additional monthly Municipal Court session (one day, one night), limit the number of trials per session, and provide a third monthly session for trials if necessary; attempt to accommodate a defendant’s preference for attending either a day or night session of Municipal Court; ensure that no defendant will be sentenced to confinement unless that defendant is represented by counsel or has waived the right to counsel; not penalize defendants for failure to appear for minor traffic violations or municipal code violations; and provide online payment options for minor traffic and/or municipal ordinance violations.
• With respect to its Municipal Code, the City will: repeal certain sections of its municipal code dealing with nuisances and housing standards and replace these sections with corresponding sections of the St. Louis County Property Maintenance Code; repeal several ordinances in addition to these provisions; and not issue tickets for conditions not specifically mentioned in the Pagedale
2

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 22 of 23 PageID #: 701
Municipal Code and dismiss all outstanding cases for violations of such conditions.
7. Monitoring Requirements. The parties have agreed that compliance with the Consent Decree will be monitored for five (5) years after the Effective Date by providing certain information, as set forth in greater detail in the Consent Decree, to Named Plaintiffs concerning the City’s budgeting, financial statements, and collections of the Pagedale Municipal Court.
8. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Damages. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, each party will be responsible for its attorneys’ fees and costs. The Consent Decree does not award damages to the Named Plaintiffs or the Class.
9. Continued Jurisdiction of the District Court. The District Court may enforce the Consent Decree through its contempt powers. The District Court will maintain jurisdiction over the Action and may issue such orders as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce the Consent Decree.
EFFECT OF THE CONSENT DECREE
10. If it is finally approved by the District Court, the Class will be bound by the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree, and shall be bound by any order issued by the District Court that enjoins all in the Class from asserting against the City and its respective affiliates, trustees, directors, officers, employees, representatives, consultants, insurance carriers, attorneys, assigns, executors, administrators, and agents, past and present, any and all rights, claims, demands, liabilities, actions and causes of action for injunctive, declaratory, or equitable relief, as well as associated attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, of whatever nature whatsoever, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, suspected or unsuspected, that all or any members of the Class now have, or may ever have, against the City, that occurred between January 1, 2010, and the Effective Date and that arise out of or in any way relate to the claims and allegations asserted in the Action.
FINAL CONSENT DECREE APPROVAL HEARING
11. On __, 2018, at __, the District Court will conduct a final approval hearing (the “Final Hearing”) to determine whether to certify the Class for purposes of settlement and grant final approval of the Consent Decree. The Final Hearing shall be conducted in Courtroom 16 South, Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102.
OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS TO PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE
12. Class members have a right to object to the terms of the Consent Decree. To be considered by the District Court, Class member objections can be made via telephone or in writing at the phone number and address for counsel for the proposed class (“Class Counsel”) listed below, but must be made to Class Counsel no later than _______.
13. Objections must include the following information: (i) the objector’s contact information (name, address, phone number, and email), (ii) an explanation of the objector’s objection to the Consent Decree; and (iii) whether the objector intends to appear at the Final
3

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 105-1 Filed: 01/11/18 Page: 23 of 23 PageID #: 702
Hearing on ___________. All information submitted to Class Counsel will be provided to the City and the District Court.
14. It not necessary for Class members to appear at the Final Hearing. An objector who wishes to appear at the Final Hearing must give notice, either in writing or by phone, to all Parties of his or her objection and his or her intention to appear at the Final Hearing. Objectors may withdraw their objections at any time.
HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION 15. Class members may request a complete copy of the Consent Decree by contacting Class Counsel at the address or numbers below, or view it on the internet at www.cityofpagedale.com/_______. 16. Class members who have questions about the Consent Decree should contact Class Counsel at:
Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203 ph: (703) 682-9320. Class members may also inspect the District Court’s file regarding this case during business hours at the office of the Clerk of Court, Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102. Please do not direct questions to the District Court.
4

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 109 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 721

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF PAGEDALE,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) No. 4:15 CV 1655 RWS ) ) ) )

ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on February 2, 2018,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties motion for preliminarily

approval of the proposed Consent Decree, [106], is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ proposed class of “all persons

who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warning that they may

receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the city of Pagedale,” (the

“City”) [1, ¶ 85], is CERTIFIED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (c).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent

Blount, and Mildred Bryant are APPOINTED as representatives for this class, and

their counsel are APPOINTED class council pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City will provide notice of the final

hearing on the fairness of the Consent Decree by (i) posting the proposed notice at

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 109 Filed: 02/06/18 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 722
the City’s City Hall, its Municipal Court, and its webpage, and (ii) publishing the proposed notice twice within a three-week period in both the St. Louis American and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held in this matter on Friday, May 18, 2018 at 1:30 pm in Courtroom 16-South concerning the final certification of this Consent Decree.
_____________________________ RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 6th day of February, 2018.

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 797

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

VALARIE WHITNER, VINCENT BLOUNT, and )

MILDRED BRYANT, individually and on behalf )

of all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Civil Case No. 4:15-cv-01655-RWS

)

CITY OF PAGEDALE, a Missouri municipal

)

corporation,

)

)

Defendant.

)

CONSENT DECREE

This Consent Decree is made and agreed upon by and between plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Plaintiffs"), and defendant the city of Pagedale (the "City"). Plaintiffs and the City shall jointly be referred to as the "Parties." A. Introduction
1. Plaintiffs commenced this action against the City on November 4, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
2. Plaintiffs' complaint (the "Complaint") alleged that the City's policies and practices regarding the enforcement and adjudication of the City's municipal code violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Due Process and Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The City has disputed that such rights have been violated by its practices.
3. The Parties agree that those ticketed or threatened with ticketing by the City for 1

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 2 of 14 PageID #: 798
violations of the Pagedale Municipal Code (the "Code") should receive constitutionally sufficient process and that such individuals should not be subject to excessive fines.
4. The Parties desire to avoid expending further time and expense and resolve all matters raised by this litigation.
5. The Parties recognize, and this Court, by entering this Consent Decree, finds that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and that it is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. B. Jurisdiction and Venue
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201(a).
7. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. C. Effective Date
8. This Consent Decree shall be effective the date this Court enters it, or a motion to enter the Consent Decree is granted, whichever occurs first, as recorded on this Court's docket (the "Effective Date").
9. This Consent Decree shall not take effect until this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), approves this Consent Decree as full settlement and release of each and every claim against the City alleged by Plaintiffs, enters a judgment, and "So Orders" this Consent Decree. D. Class Definition-Settlement Class
10. This action shall be certified as a class action only with respect to Count One of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
2

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 3 of 14 PageID #: 799
11. The plaintiff class shall be defined as "all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warnings that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the City of Pagedale." E. Reform of the Municipal Court Practices and City Prosecutions
12. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, the City shall develop and implement all necessary ordinances and policies as described herein to ensure that any individual ticketed by the City and appearing before the Pagedale Municipal Court (a "defendant") is afforded constitutionally sufficient process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Such ordinances and policies shall incorporate the following provisions and requirements set forth below.
13. For any case initiated after January 1, 2010, in which a defendant has made payments to the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court that exceed the initial amount of the fine for the alleged violation, including any payments for associated fines resulting from a failure to appear, the City shall dismiss all such fines and fees in excess of the initial fine and close the case without further collections. This dismissal shall include all cases dismissed "on payment of costs" where fines and fees remain outstanding. The City shall do so unilaterally and without requiring the defendant to appear in court or take any other action whatsoever. The City shall inform, via first-class mail, all defendants in such cases that they are no longer required to pay the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court any amount for those past violations.
14. For all cases initiated by the City after January 1, 2010, the City shall decline to prosecute all unresolved or open cases not yet adjudicated and all warrants associated with those cases shall be withdrawn. However, the Pagedale Municipal Prosecutor may continue a case and
3

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 4 of 14 PageID #: 800
maintain a municipal arrest warrant in a manner consistent with the terms of this Consent Decree if he or she finds good cause to continue prosecution. As used in this paragraph, "good cause" means that the Pagedale Municipal Prosecutor has a legally sufficient or substantial reason to continue prosecution.
15. The City shall eliminate, on its own volition and unilaterally, all pending charges, fines, and fees associated with any citation for Failure to Appear in Municipal Court (Pagedale, Mo., Code§ 125.260) without requiring a defendant to make any payment, appear in court, or take any other action. The City shall inform, via first-class mail, all defendants in such cases of the elimination of such charges, fines, and fees. The City shall also inform any collection or credit agency with whom the City communicates regarding collections that it has eliminated such charges, fines, and fees.
16. The City shall maintain a list, which it shall publicly post, of the amount of each fine for any municipal ordinance violations for which a fine is allowed under Missouri law. The City shall post this list on its website and make a hard copy available to each defendant appearing before the Pagedale Municipal Court.
17. All citations, summonses, arrest notification forms, and other charging documents used or issued by the City shall provide all defendants with the following information: (i) the charges brought against them, including the specific ordinance the City alleges the defendant has violated, (ii) the potential penalty for, conviction (including the amount of any fine), (iii) options for resolving the charge, (iv) all pending deadlines, (v) the date and time of any court session at which the defendant must appear, and (vi) the procedure for seeking a continuance. Any defendant who receives a citation, summons, arrest notification, or other charging document from
4

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 5 of 14 PageID #: 801
the City shall have the right to inspect and receive a copy, free of charge, of any ordinance the City alleges the defendant has violated. The defendant may only request such ordinance from the City at the Pagedale City Hall during its normal hours of operation.
18. At the beginning of every session of the Pagedale Municipal Court, the City shall provide to each defendant a handout substantially in the form of the document entitled "Your Municipal Court," attached to this Consent Decree as Exhibit A.
19. Upon conviction or entry of a guilty plea, the City shall provide to each defendant a handout explaining how to sign up to pay, in installments, any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court. This handout may be combined into one document with the "Your Municipal Court" handout referred to in Section E.18 above, so long as the content of both documents remains substantially the same in the combined version.
20. The City shall issue a receipt for every payment it receives for any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court. Each receipt shall contain, at a minimum, (i) the amount of the payment received, (ii) the specific violation to which the payment is to be applied, identified by the date of the offense and the specific ordinance violation (as well as any other information, such as the case number associated with the violation, which the City, in its discretion, may include), and (iii) the amount the defendant still owes for that violation.
21. At a minimum, the City shall hold court sessions on the following schedule each month: One session to begin and end between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Prevailing Time, Monday through Friday, and one session to occur in the evening, to begin at or around 6 p.m., Central Prevailing Time, Monday through Friday.
22. Any individual cited by the City shall be given, at the time the City issues the
5

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 6 of 14 PageID #: 802
citation, the option to choose whether to appear at a day or evening session of the Pagedale Municipal Court. In the event that such practice results in a large disparity in the number of cases on one of the dockets, the City may, when reasonably necessary to balance to load of the dockets, assign cases to a docket regardless of the choice of the individual cited. Similarly, and also subject to the City's ability to make docket assignments when reasonably necessary to balance the number of cases on the dockets in the event of a large disparity in the number of cases on the dockets, any defendant requesting a continuance shall be given the option to continue the hearing either at a day or evening session of the court.
23. The City shall not use municipal arrest warrants as a means of collecting civil court debt. The City denies that this is currently its policy or practice.
24. Before it imposes any penalty on any defendant for failure to pay any fine or fee imposed by the Pagedale Municipal Court, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall hold a contempt hearing. This contempt hearing shall include a determination by the Pagedale Municipal Court of the defendant's ability to pay any fine or fee. As part of the ability to pay determination, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall affirmatively inquire as to a defendant's capacity to pay prior to imposing a penalty for failure to pay. A defendant may demonstrate an inability to pay by completing a standard affidavit under penalty of perjury. Such an affidavit shall be prima facie evidence of the defendant's inability to pay and any defendant submitting such an affidavit shall be adjudicated unable to pay. Upon such a determination, the Pagedale Municipal Court shall proportion all penalties to the financial resources of the defendant. Included in the ability to pay determination shall be an express inquiry by the Pagedale Municipal Court into any documented fines and fees owed by the defendant to other municipal courts.
6
/

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 7 of 14 PageID #: 803
25. The Pagedale Municipal Court shall not sentence any defendant to incarceration or confinement unless that defendant is either (i) represented by counsel, or (ii) knowingly, inteiligently, voluntarily, and on the record waived the right to counsel. All defendants facing a sentence of incarceration or confinement shall be informed orally by the Pagedale Municipal Court, as well as in the "Your Municipal Court" sheet referred to in Section E.18 above, that they are entitled to the appointment of counsel at no cost. The "Your Municipal Court" sheet shall explain the process by which counsel shall be appointed for any defendant entitled to an attorney.
26. The City shall not penalize defendants for failure to appear for either minor traffic violations or municipal ordinance violations, as those terms are defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 479.350 (as that statute may be amended from time to time).
27. The Pagedale Municipal Court shall not conduct more than seven (7) trials in any single session of the court. If the number of trials in a single session exceeds seven (7), the City shall schedule a third session, exclusively for conducting trials, within thirty (30) days of the date on which the surplus trials were initially scheduled.
28. The City shall revise its online payment system to allow any defendant to pay any fines and fees resulting from a minor traffic violation or a municipal ordinance violation, as those terms are defined in Mo. Rev. Stat.§ 479.350 (and as those terms may be amended by statute from time to time). F. Municipal Code Revisions
29. The City shall take the following actions: a. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Effective Date, the City shall repeal: Chapter 215 (entitled "Nuisances"), Articles I and III; and, Chapter
7

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 8 of 14 PageID #: 804
515, Article I ("Minimum Housing Standards") of the Code and replace such chapters with an ordinance adopting, or ordinances substantially in the form of, the St. Louis County Property Maintenance Code, Chapter 1110 Title XI, Public Works and Building Regulations-Adoption of International Property Maintenance Code, Year 2009 Edition (Ordinance No. 24,440, Approved July 14, 2010); b. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, the City shall repeal, and shall not reenact, the following ordinances: Pagedale, Mo., Code§ 210.750 (regarding barbeques); Pagedale, Mo., Code§ 210.770 (prohibiting wearing pants below the waist in public); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345 .030 (regarding walking on the left side of a crosswalk); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 345.080 (regarding walking on a roadway); Pagedale, Mo., Code § 405.080(A) (regarding basketball hoops and wading pools); and Pagedale, Mo., Code§ 405.270 (prohibiting a dish antenna on the front of houses). 30. The City shall ensure that any provision of the Code repealed or modified pursuant to this Consent Decree shall remain repealed or modified and shall not be replaced with any similar ordinances or policies, whether formal or informal. 31. The City shall only issue citations for violations of specific provisions of the Code. The City shall cease ticketing, and shall cease threatening to ticket, individuals for conditions not specifically mentioned in the Code. The City shall dismiss all outstanding cases for violations of such conditions. The City shall provide written notice, via first-class mail, to all defendants in such cases of such dismissal.
8

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 9 of 14 PageID #: 805
32. The City shall dismiss all outstanding citations and cases for the violation of any ordinance that is modified or repealed, in whole or in part, by the terms of this Consent Decree. The City shall provide written notice, via first-class mail, to all recipients of such citations or defendants in such cases of such dismissal. G. Amnesty
33. The City shall dismiss each, any, and all outstanding citations, fines, fees, and warrants for the named plaintiffs. Furthermore, the City shall take no further action on any warning or code inspection report issued to such named plaintiffs prior to the Effective Date. H. Enforcement
34. In order to ensure compliance with this Consent Decree, the City shall provide Plaintiffs with the following documents and information.
35. The City shall provide Plaintiffs with the following documents and information on an annual basis within sixty days (60) of completion:
a. An audited financial statement, compliant with Government Accounting Standards Board standards, for each fiscal year;
b. The approved, final budget showing forecasted revenue and expenditures by fiscal year;
c. Any reports provided by the City to the Missouri State Auditor pursuant to Senate Bill 5 or Senate Bill 572;
d. Any reports provided by the City to the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator, including the Municipal Division Summary Reporting Form;
e. A municipal court statistics report including statistics on active cases and
9

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 10 of 14 PageID #: 806

fines and fees collected; and

f.

Any copies of issued financial or management performance audits and

related corrective action plans prepared by or on behalf of the City.

36. The City shall provide the Plaintiffs with the following documents and

information within sixty (60) days of the end of each fiscal quarter:

a. Quarterly interim budget reports reflecting year-to-date revenues and

expenditures as compared with budgeted amounts; and

b. Records of collections by the Pagedale Municipal Court.

37. The City will provide the Plaintiffs any findings or reports issued by the Missouri

State Auditor concerning the City or the Pagedale Municipal Court within sixty (60) days of the

City becoming aware of the same.

38. The City shall provide such reports for five (5) years following the Effective Date.

39. Within five (5) years of the Effective Date, at Plaintiffs' written request, the City

shall provide Plaintiffs with information reasonably necessary to demonstrate the City's

performance of its obligations under this Consent Decree. Plaintiffs' written request must be

reasonable and Plaintiffs' request shall not be more frequent than once every six (6) months.

40. If Plaintiffs reasonably believe that the City is not in substantial compliance with

the terms of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs' counsel shall, by written notice, call a meeting with

the City's counsel to be held at a mutually agreeable time and place within thirty (30) days of the

request to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute. The City's counsel shall attend such a

meeting.

41. In the event that counsel for the City and counsel for Plaintiffs cannot come to an

10

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 11 of 14 PageID #: 807
agreement that resolves the claimed violations, Plaintiffs may move this Court, pursuant to Rule 70 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable rule or procedure, for an order enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree and any other enforcement and implementation mechanisms as may be necessary or appropriate. If this Court issues such an order, this Court may, in its discretion, award Plaintiffs' counsel their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with obtaining such order.
42. This Consent Decree constitutes final relief entered by this Court and is enforceable through this Court's contempt powers. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes and may issue such orders as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce this Consent Decree.
43. The Parties may jointly agree to make changes, modifications, and amendments to this Consent Decree, which shall be effective if approved by this Court.
44. The Parties agree to defend the provisions of this Consent Decree, including in collective bargaining. Each party shall notify the other of any legal challenge to this Consent Decree, whether such challenge arises in a court, a union, or an administrative proceeding or otherwise. If any provision of this Consent Decree is challenged in any state or municipal court, the Parties shall agree to consent tq_ removal to Federal Court.
45. The City shall require compliance with this Consent Decree by its respective officers, employees, agents, agencies, assigns, or successors. I. FRCP 23(e) Hearing
46. Plaintiffs' counsel shall make a motion to this Court for preliminary approval of this Consent Decree and for entry of an Order for Notice and Hearing. Such motion shall request
11

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 12 of 14 PageID #: 808
this Court set a date for a hearing to determine if the resolution of this matter is fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Such motion shall also request that this Court determine that sufficient and adequate notice of the hearing consists of (i) the City posting a Notice of Hearing at the City's City Hall and Municipal Court; (ii) the City posting a Notice of Hearing on the City's website; and (iii) publication·ofthe Notice of Hearing by the City twice within a three-week period in each of the following publications: The St. Louis American; The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The Notice of Hearing shall be in the form attached as Exhibit B to this Consent Decree. J. Release
47. As of the Effective Date, all claims raised by the Plaintiffs against the City shall be resolved with prejudice and all remedies sought in the Complaint concerning such claims shall be replaced by the provisions of this Consent Decree.
48. The Parties shall each bear their own fees, expenses, and costs with respect to all claims raised by the Plaintiffs in the Complaint. K. Miscellaneous Provisions
49. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect until this Court, upon the motion of either party, determines that the provisions are no longer necessary to ensure that the City's policies and practices are consistent with constitutional standards.
50. The Parties have both participated in the drafting of this Consent Decree. As such, any ambiguity in this Consent Decree shall not be construed against either party.
51. Any notice or reporting required by or made pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree shall be sent by both first-class mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail to:
12

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 13 of 14 PageID #: 809
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Attn: William R. Maurer 600 University Street, Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: wmaurer@ij.org
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Attn: Joshua House 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Email: jhouse@ij.org
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Attn: Barbara Smith One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2750 Email: Barbara.Smith@bclplaw.com
FOR THE CITY:
BEHR, McCARTER & POTTER, P.C. Attn: Timothy Reichardt 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com
SJALTON LAW, LLC Attn: Sam J. Alton 7582 Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63119 Email: sam@stliniured.com
Any party may change the above-designated addressee or address by written notice to the other
party.
13

Case: 4:15-cv-01655-RWS Doc. #: 116 Filed: 05/21/18 Page: 14 of 14 PageID #: 810

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:

Isl William R. Maurer William R. Maurer*, WSBA No. 25451 Institute for Justice 600 University Street, Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 957-1300 Fax: (206) 957-1301 Email: wmaurer@ij.org *Admitted Pro Hae Vice
Counselfor Plaintiffs

May 10, 2018 Date

Isl Timothy J. Reichardt Timothy J. Reichardt, No. 57684MO Behr, Mccarter & Potter, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3800 Fax: (314) 862-3953 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com
Counselfor Defendant City ofPagedale

May 10, 2018 Date

SO ORDERED:
~~ Rodney W. Sippel United States District Judge Date:~ .),-( , fJo t8
14

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 1 of 12
CLOSED,ADRC,PROTO,TRCK2
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−01655−RWS

Whitner et al v. City of Pagedale Assigned to: District Judge Rodney W. Sippel Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Valarie Whitner individually

Date Filed: 11/04/2015 Date Terminated: 05/21/2018 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by J. Bennett Clark BRYAN CAVE LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−259−2000 Fax: 314−259−2020 Email: ben.clark@bclplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S. Russell BRYAN CAVE LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−259−2000 Fax: 314−259−2020 Email: jsrussell@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua House INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Rd Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 703−682−9320 Fax: 703−682−9321 Email: jhouse@ij.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R. Maurer INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 600 University St. Suite 1730 Seattle, WA 98101 206−957−1300 Fax: 206−957−1301 Email: wmaurer@ij.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbara A. Smith BRYAN CAVE LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway Suite 3600

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 2 of 12

St. Louis, MO 63102 314−259−2367 Fax: 314−552−8367 Email: barbara.smith@bclplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Brendan Lanahan BRYAN CAVE LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−259−2235 Fax: 314−259−2020 Email: michael.lanahan@ded.mo.gov TERMINATED: 04/27/2017

Plaintiff
Vincent Blount individually

represented by J. Bennett Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S. Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua House (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R. Maurer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara A. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Brendan Lanahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2017

Plaintiff
Mildred Bryant individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by J. Bennett Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S. Russell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua House (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R. Maurer (See above for address)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 3 of 12
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barbara A. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Brendan Lanahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2017

V.
Defendant
City of Pagedale a Missouri municipal corporation

represented by Timothy J. Reichardt BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Avenue Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 314−862−3800 Fax: 314−862−3953 Email: treichardt@bmplaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew T. Tangaro EDWARD JONES 12555 Manchester Rd. St. Louis, MO 63131 314−515−0012 Fax: 877−485−5918 Email: andrew.tangaro@edwardjones.com TERMINATED: 09/28/2016
Joseph C. Vitale BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Avenue Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 314−862−3800 x234 Email: jvitale@bmplaw.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2016
Ryan M. Hyde BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Avenue Suite 1400 St. Louis, MO 63105 314−862−3800 Fax: 314−862−3953 Email: rhyde@bmplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/04/2015
11/04/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number 0865−5119848, in the amount of $400 Non−Jury Demand,, filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Original Filing Form, # 3 Summons Pagedale City Clerk, # 4 Summons Pagedale City Attorney)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
2 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner Process Server: Markell & Associates, Inc. (Maurer, William)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 4 of 12

11/04/2015
11/04/2015 11/04/2015 11/05/2015 11/05/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2015
11/09/2015 11/10/2015
11/17/2015
11/25/2015 11/25/2015 11/25/2015 11/30/2015
11/30/2015 11/30/2015

(Entered: 11/04/2015)
3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice William R. Maurer. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100 receipt number 0865−5119924) by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing for William Maurer)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
Case Opening Notification: 1 Summons(es) issued as to Pagedale City Clerk only. The summons was emailed to attorney William R. Maurer. Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. (BAK) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
4 ENTRY of Appearance by J. Bennett Clark for Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Clark, J.) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
6 MEMORANDUM Proof of Service Noting Service of Complaint to Missouri Attorney General by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount. City of Pagedale served on 11/4/2015, answer due 11/25/2015. (LGK) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
Receipt 4644053455 in the amount of $100.00 for PRO HAC VICE on behalf of Joshua House (CCAM) (Entered: 11/08/2015)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Joshua House. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached (Filing fee $100 receipt number 53455) by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(CAR) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
7 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael Brendan Lanahan for Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Lanahan, Michael) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
9 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Joshua House. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached (Filing fee $100 receipt number 53455) by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(CAR) filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/10/15. (LGK) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
10 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice William R. Maurer filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/17/15. (CAR) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
11 ENTRY of Appearance by Timothy J. Reichardt for Defendant City of Pagedale. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
13 ENTRY of Appearance by Joseph C. Vitale for Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
14 MOTION for Extension of: Time by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
***REMARK: Doc. 12 an entry of appearance for Andrew Tangaro, which was incorrectly filed by Joseph Vitale. The document was deleted and will be correctly filed by Andrew Tangaro. There will not be a Doc. 12 in this case. (CAR) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
15 ENTRY of Appearance by Andrew T. Tangaro for Defendant City of Pagedale. (Tangaro, Andrew) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
16 Docket Text ORDER: as to City of Pagedale Re: 14 MOTION for Extension of: Time by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) filed by City of Pagedale ; ORDERED GRANTED, City of Pagedale answer due 12/7/2015.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/30/15. (LGK) (Entered: 11/30/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 5 of 12

12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/07/2015 12/14/2015
12/21/2015 12/21/2015 12/21/2015 12/22/2015 12/22/2015
01/08/2016
01/21/2016 01/22/2016 02/24/2016
03/04/2016 03/10/2016
03/16/2016

17 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by City of Pagedale.(Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
18 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
19 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 18 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
20 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Main Document 20 replaced on 12/15/2015) (LGK). (Entered: 12/14/2015)
21 MOTION to Dismiss :Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant's Claims from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
22 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 21 MOTION to Dismiss :Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant's Claims from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
23 First MOTION for Extension of: Time by Consent by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
24 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
25 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 23 First MOTION for Extension of: Time by Consent by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount ; ORDERED GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/22/15. (LGK) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
26 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 21 MOTION to Dismiss :Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant's Claims from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion re 21 MOTION to Dismiss :Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant's Claims from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
28 ORDER denying 18 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint filed by City of Pagedale. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/22/16. (CAR) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
29 RULE 16 ORDER This case is assigned to Track: PTRACK 2 − STANDARD Joint Scheduling Plan due by 3/17/2016. Rule 16 Conference set for 3/24/2016 09:30 AM in Chambers before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/24/16. (LGK) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
30 NOTICE by Defendant City of Pagedale of Withdrawal of Appearance (Vitale, Joseph) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
31 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Pagedale's Motion to Dismiss Count IV and Plaintiff Mildred Bryant's Claims from Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Class Action Complaint # 21 , as construed in part as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed. Defendant's Motion is otherwise denied. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/10/16. (ARL) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
32 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER RULE 26(f) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 6 of 12

03/17/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/16/2016 06/16/2016
07/06/2016
07/22/2016 07/27/2016
08/01/2016
08/19/2016 08/19/2016

33 Docket Text ORDER: re 30 NOTICE by Defendant City of Pagedale of Withdrawal of Appearance ; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Joseph C. Vitale terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/17/16. (ARL) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
34 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a class certification scheduling conference is set for June 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Parties shall file a joint proposed class certification schedule no later than June 9, 2016. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/24/16. (ARL) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
35 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2. Motion to Join Parties due by 5/27/2016. Discovery Completion due by 12/16/2016. ADR Future Reference 9/1/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 1/20/2017. Jury Trial set for 6/12/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/24/16. (ARL) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
36 ENTRY of Appearance by Ryan M. Hyde for Defendant City of Pagedale. (Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
37 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. Regarding Class Certification (Proposed). (Maurer, William) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Class Certification Scheduling Conference held on 6/16/2016. Order to follow. (Court Reporter:Shannon White.) (FTR Gold: No.) (CAR) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
39 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUES: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following schedule shall apply to the class certification issues in this case and will be modified only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances: (see order for details) Discovery Completion due by 7/11/2016. Class Certification Hearing set for 10/11/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/16/2016. (KMS) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
40 TRANSCRIPT of 38 (STATUS CONFERENCE) held on 6/16/16 before Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/27/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/8/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/4/2016. (LGK) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
41 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certification Case Management Order by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
42 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to modify the class certification case management order 41 is GRANTED. The deadlines set in the existing class certification case management order 39 are vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for motions to compel on class certification discovery issues is August 19, 2016. An amended class certification scheduling conference will be set at a later date to schedule the remaining deadlines. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/27/16. (ARL) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
43 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an amended class certification scheduling conference will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16−South. Local counsel must attend in person. Out−of−town counsel who wish to participate by telephone must file a motion asking to do so no later than September 9, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed amended class certification scheduling plan no later than September 9, 2016. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/1/16. (CAR) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
44 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
45 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 44 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner.

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 7 of 12

08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/29/2016
08/30/2016 09/02/2016
09/02/2016 09/09/2016 09/09/2016 09/12/2016
09/15/2016 09/16/2016

(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Joshua House in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
46 MOTION to Vacate Deadline for Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure and Report and to Shorten Time for Defendant's Response by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 46 MOTION to Vacate Deadline for Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure and Report and to Shorten Time for Defendant's Response filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
48 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
49 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 MOTION to Vacate Deadline for Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure and Report and to Shorten Time for Defendant's Response filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
50 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Deadline for Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosure and Report # 46 is GRANTED. New deadlines will be discussed at the September 15, 2016 scheduling conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Extension to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel # 48 is GRANTED. Defendant's response must be filed no later than August 30, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties should be prepared to discuss Plaintiffs' motion to compel 44 , the class certification schedule, and the general case management order at the September 15, 2016 scheduling conference.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/29/16. (LGK) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
51 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 44 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
52 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Alternative Dispute Resolution. This case is referred to: mediation Designation of Lead Counsel: J. Bennett Clark ADR Completion Deadline due by 10/31/2016. ADR Compliance Report Deadline due by 11/14/2016. Designation of Neutral/Conference Report due by 9/22/2016.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/2/16. (LGK) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
53 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
54 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. Regarding Amended Class Certification Schedule (Proposed). (Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
55 MOTION for Leave to Appear by Telephone by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
56 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Out−of−Town Counsel to Appear by Telephone # 55 at the conference scheduled for September 15, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' out−of−town counsel should call my chambers at 314−244−7430 to be connected to the courtroom for the conference. All other counsel must appear in person. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/12/16. (LGK) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 9/15/2016. Discussion held between Court and counsel on motion to compel 44 , and scheduling. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Debbie Kriegshauser) (FTR Gold: No) (LGK) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
58 ORDER: In accordance with and for the reasons stated on the record at the September 15, 2016 hearing in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Responses # 44 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Discovery will proceed as stated on the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall confer on dates for the next hearing in this matter and jointly submit a written notice with suggested dates no later than Monday, September 19, 2016. Signed

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 8 of 12

09/19/2016 09/20/2016
09/22/2016 09/23/2016 09/27/2016 09/28/2016 09/30/2016 10/04/2016 10/05/2016 10/17/2016 11/02/2016
11/03/2016 11/04/2016

by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/16/16. (CAR) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
59 NOTICE of Parties Suggesting Hearing Dates Regarding Discovery: by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner (Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
60 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status and scheduling conference in this matter will be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 16 South. The parties should be prepared to update the Court on the discovery issues discussed at the last conference and to set an amended class certification schedule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed amended class certification scheduling plan no later than September 30, 2016. Status Conference set for 10/4/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/20/16. (ARL) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
61 Designation of Neutral by parties and ADR Conference Report by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner Neutral: Limbaugh Sr., Stephen N. Date of Conference: October 11, 2016 time: 1:00PM Location: U.S. Arbitration & Mediation Office, 500 N. Broadway, Suite 1800, Saint Louis, Missouri 63102(Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
62 NOTICE of Appointment of Neutral. Neutral name: Limbaugh Sr., Stephen N. Neutral selected by parties (Copy of notice emailed to neutral)(LGK) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
63 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Tangaro, Andrew) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
64 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 63 MOTION for Leave to Withdraw filed by City of Pagedale; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Andrew T. Tangaro terminated. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/28/16. (CAR) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
65 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. Regarding Amended Class Certification Schedule (Proposed). (Maurer, William) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 10/4/2016. Discussion held. ( Status Conference set for 11/3/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel.) (Court Reporter: Shannon White) (ARL) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
67 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a discovery status conference will be held in this matter on Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 16−South. Discovery will proceed as stated on the record at the status conference held on October 4, 2016. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/5/16. (CAR) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
68 ADR COMPLIANCE REPORT by Neutral: Limbaugh Sr., Stephen N.. Date of Conference: October 11, 2016. The parties participated in good faith. The parties did not achieve a settlement.(KXS) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
69 TRANSCRIPT of 66 (STATUS HEARING) held on 10/4/16 before Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/23/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/31/2017. (CAR) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
70 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 11/3/2016. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Shannon White) (FTR Gold: No) (CAR) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
71 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining deadlines set in the case management order for this case 35 are vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a proposed protective order(s) to be entered in this case no later than November 10, 2016. See Order for schedule regarding class certification issues. A Class Certification Hearing is set for 5/18/2017

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 9 of 12

11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/10/2016 11/15/2016 02/09/2017 02/10/2017
03/20/2017 03/20/2017 04/26/2017 04/26/2017 04/27/2017
09/25/2017
09/25/2017

at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/4/16. (CAR) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
72 MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A − Defendant's Proposed Protective Order)(Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
73 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
74 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 73 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit [[Plaintiffs' Proposed]] Protective Order)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
75 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/15/16. (LGK) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
76 MOTION to Vacate Amended Case Management Order by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
77 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Amended Case Management Order 76 is GRANTED. The deadlines set in the amended case management order for this case 71 are vacated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set in this matter for March 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/10/17. (ARL) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 3/20/2017. Order to follow. (Court Reporter:Shannon White) (FTR Gold: No) (CAR) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
79 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. This action is set for a Class Certification Hearing on December 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 16−South before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. See Order for additional deadlines. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/20/17. (CAR) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
80 ENTRY of Appearance by Barbara A. Smith for Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Smith, Barbara) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
81 MOTION to Substitute Attorney/Law Firm ;attorney or firm Barbara A. Smith ;substituted for:Michael B. Lanahan by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Smith, Barbara) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
82 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 81 MOTION to Substitute Attorney/Law Firm; attorney or firm Barbara A. Smith substituted for Michael B. Lanahan, filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount; ORDERED GRANTED. Attorney Michael Brendan Lanahan no longer assigned to the case. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/27/17. (CAR) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
83 TRANSCRIPT of 70 (STATUS HEARING) held on 11/3/16 before Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/16/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/26/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2017. (ARL) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
84 TRANSCRIPT of 78 (STATUS CONFERENCE) held on 3/20/17 before Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/16/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/26/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2017. (ARL) (Entered: 09/25/2017)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 10 of 12

10/11/2017 10/11/2017
10/16/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017
10/23/2017
10/25/2017 10/30/2017 11/07/2017
11/07/2017
11/10/2017 11/13/2017 11/14/2017

85 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
86 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 85 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DECLARATION OF WILLIAM R.MAURER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
87 ENTRY of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Russell for Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Russell, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
88 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 85 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
89 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
90 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 89 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Valarie Whitner, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Vincent Blount, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Mildred Bryant, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Michael E. Imber, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of William Maurer)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
91 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing is set in this matter on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. The parties should be prepared for oral argument on Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 85 . Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/23/2017. (CAR) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
92 REPLY to Response to Motion re 85 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
93 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. Amendment to 90 Memorandum in Support of Motion, Praecipe. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
94 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Motion Hearing held on 11/7/2017 re 85 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount. Arguments made. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966) (FTR Gold: No) (LGK) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
95 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 85 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory No. 16. With respect to Interrogatory No. 17, Defendant shall identify its general operating revenue for the years at issue. Defendant shall respond as provided herein no later than November 21, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is set in this matter on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16 South.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/7/17. (LGK) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
96 MEMORANDUM re 95 Order,, by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 11/10/2017)
97 MOTION for Leave to Permit Plaintiff Bryant to Appear by Telephone by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
98 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 97 MOTION for Leave to Permit Plaintiff Bryant to Appear by Telephone by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) filed by Valarie Whitner, Mildred Bryant, Vincent Blount ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/14/17. (ARL) (Entered: 11/14/2017)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 11 of 12

11/14/2017 11/15/2017
12/05/2017 12/06/2017 12/19/2017 01/10/2018 01/11/2018 01/11/2018 01/30/2018 02/02/2018 02/06/2018

99 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 11/14/2017. Discussion held. All deadlines held in abeyance. Next status conference set for 12/15/17 at 1:30 p.m. Written Order to follow. (Court Reporter: Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966)(FTR Gold Operator initials:ARL) (FTR Gold: Yes) (ARL) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
100 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in this case, including but not limited to all class certification and discovery matters, shall be stayed unless and until otherwise provided by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is set in this matter on Friday, December 15, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16 South.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/15/17. (LGK) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
101 MOTION to Continue ; Request for Resetting of Upcoming Status Conference by Defendant City of Pagedale. (Reichardt, Timothy) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
102 ORDER: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion 101 is granted and the status hearing is reset to be held at the beginning of the Class Certification Hearing currently set in this matter for Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/6/2017. (CAR) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
103 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Status Conference held on 12/19/2017. Discussion held between Court and counsel. Parties to submit date for the next hearing at a date agreed upon by all parties. (Court Reporter:Angela Daley, Angela_Daley@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7978) (FTR Gold: No) (LGK) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
104 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing regarding the parties' proposed consent decree is set in this matter on Friday, February 2, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16 South.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/10/18. (LGK) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
105 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and for Entry of an Order for Notice and Hearing by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Decree)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
106 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 105 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and for Entry of an Order for Notice and Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
107 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing regarding the parties proposed consent decree is reset from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Friday, February 2, 2018 in Courtroom 16 South. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/30/18. (ARL) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
108 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Parties present for approval of consent decree. Discussion held between Court and counsel. Preliminary approval given. Final hearing set for 5/18/18 at 1:30 p.m. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Shannon White, Shannon_White@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7966) (FTR Gold: No) (LGK) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
109 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties motion for preliminarily approval of the proposed Consent Decree, 106 , is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' proposed class of "all persons who, at any time since January 1, 2010, have received warning that they may receive tickets, have been ticketed, or will be ticketed by the city of Pagedale," (the "City") [1, 85], is CERTIFIED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b) (2), (c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant are APPOINTED as representatives for this class, and their counsel are APPOINTED class council pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City will provide notice of the final hearing on the fairness of the Consent Decree by (i) posting the proposed notice at the City's City Hall, its Municipal Court, and its webpage, and (ii) publishing the proposed notice twice within a three−week period in both the St. Louis American and the St. Louis Post−Dispatch. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held in this matter on Friday, May 18, 2018 at 1:30 pm in Courtroom 16−South concerning the final certification of this Consent Decree.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/6/18. (LGK) (Entered: 02/06/2018)

Case: 4:15-cv-1655 As of: 10/14/2018 12:04 PM CDT 12 of 12

03/07/2018 05/10/2018 05/10/2018 05/10/2018 05/18/2018 05/18/2018
05/21/2018

110 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by William R. Maurer. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
111 NOTICE by Defendant City of Pagedale of Compliance with Court Order re Publication of Notice of Final Approval Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hyde, Ryan) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
112 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B. Maurer Declaration)(Maurer, William) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
113 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 112 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
114 Consent Decree by Plaintiffs Vincent Blount, Mildred Bryant, Valarie Whitner. (Maurer, William) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel: Parties present for certification hearing/final decision on consent decree held on 5/18/2018. Discussion held between Court, counsel and plaintiffs. Consent decree approved. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Debbie Kriegshauser, Deborah_Kriegshauser@moed.uscourts.gov, 314−244−7449) (FTR Gold: No) (LGK) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
116 CONSENT DECREE; SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/21/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 05/21/2018)