# Tolden v. The City's Finest, LLC

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · April 24, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851296

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 24, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851296

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining “our adversarial system relies on the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LAMAR TOLDEN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00141-MTS
)
THE CITY’S FINEST, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court dismissed a previous version of this action for Plaintiffs counsel’s
repeated failures to comply with deadlines and Court orders. Tolden v. City’s Finest, LLC,
4:23-cv-01535-MTS, 2025 WL 252466 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2025). The Court found that
dismissal with prejudice would have been appropriate. Id. at *2, n.3. Nevertheless, the
Court dismissed the action without prejudice, specifically noting that such a dismissal
would “allow Plaintiff to thoughtfully consider whether he is prepared to prosecute an
action against these Defendants and, if so, allow Plaintiff to file this action again if he
determines that he is prepared.” Id. at *2. Plaintiffs refiled this action, but they apparently
did not thoughtfully consider whether they were prepared to prosecute the action.
On April 09, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss this action with prejudice.
Doc. [10]. Plaintiffs’ time to oppose the Motion has now lapsed with no response at all
from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ Motion. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B). The Court is
dumbfounded. It will dismiss this action with prejudice for Plaintiffs’ consistent failure to
prosecute this matter and, additionally, will dismiss this action by granting the Plaintiffs
unopposed Motion.”
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [10], is
GRANTED. A separate Order of Dismissal dismissing this action with prejudice will be
entered herewith.
Dated this 24th day of April 2025. Th
THEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

See Scott v. State of Tennessee, 878 F.2d 382 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam table decision)
(“Because the plaintiff failed to make a timely response to defendants’ motion, the district court
properly deemed the plaintiff to have waived his objections and found the defendants’ motion to
be meritorious.”); Farraj v. Cunningham, 659 F. App’x 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (mem.) (affirming
the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's complaint “based on his failure to oppose the motions to
dismiss”); see also Brown v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Drug Task Force, 255 F.3d 475, 476 (8th Cir. 2001)
(reviewing district court’s dismissal for plain error where plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s
motion to dismiss). Without anything to the contrary from Plaintiffs, the Court agrees dismissal
is appropriate largely for the reasons stated in Defendants’ Motion. See Metlife, Inc. v. Fin.
Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 667 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining “our adversarial
system relies on the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs”); cf Terrell v. First Student
Management LLC, 4:16-cv-0481-SNLJ, 2016 WL 6679847, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 14, 2016)
(finding plaintiffs failed to allege facts regarding times for which overtime was improperly
withheld).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10851296. Public record. Not legal advice.