Mosley v. City of St. Louis et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD MOSLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01580-MTS
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants City of St. Louis and Dale Glass
(together, “Defendants”)’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitations, Doc. [46], as
well as Plaintiff Harold Mosley’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, Doc. [48]. Defendants seek leave to
file an overlength Memorandum in Support of their Motion. Compare Doc. [46-1], with
E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(D) (setting a limitation of fifteen numbered pages subject to certain
exclusions). To support their request, Defendants state only that, “[i]n order to sufficiently
set forth and analyze the facts and legal authority relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, . . . [the
Memorandum] has exceeded the fifteen-page limitation.” Doc. [46] ¶ 2. Upon
consideration of claims at issue, and without the benefit of a more-than-cursory
explanation, the Court does not agree that additional pages would be beneficial. Indeed,
in the ordinary case, the Court’s fifteen-page limit operates as a benefit to all relevant
stakeholders: the bench, bar, and client. See Morgan v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 797 F.2d
471, 480 (7th Cir. 1986) (Easterbrook, J.) (explaining that page limitations benefit the
Case: 4:24-cv-01580-MTS Doc. #: 51 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
litigants and the court and induce an advocate “to write tight prose, which helps his client’s
cause”). The Court sees no reason to depart from its usual requirements here.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis and Defendant Dale
Glass’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitations, Doc. [46], is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than Monday, March 23, 2026,
Defendants shall file a Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings that complies with the requirements of Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule
4.01(D).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have the usual amount of time to
respond once Defendants file a compliant Memorandum in Support. See E.D. Mo. L.R.
4.01(B) (setting a fourteen-day response deadline).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Extension of
Time, Doc. [48], is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 16th day of March 2026.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-01580-MTS Doc. #: 51 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>