Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Mark Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 19-3691, 19-3693 · judgment June 3, 2021
Before the decision, about 2.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a circuit split argued in the petition, and an Eighth Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.
Questions presented
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) authorizes a federal court to “strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A court may do so on its own, or based on a motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading. In the decision below the Eighth Circuit used Rule 12(f) to strike Plaintiff’s allegations supporting his claim that the case should proceed as a class action. The questions presented are:
-
May allegations made in support of the claim that a case should proceed as a class action be struck from a pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits striking any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter”?
-
If so, what standards govern whether to strike such allegations?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Scott E. Gant
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
For respondent
John Cowles Neiman Jr.
Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.
Case
Subject area
Judicial Power (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Order
Order list, May 2, 2022 · Certiorari denied
Proceedings
- May 02 2022Petition DENIED.
- Apr 13 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
- Apr 11 2022Reply of petitioner Mark Donelson filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 24 2022Brief of respondents Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al.
- Feb 24 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2022, for all respondents.
- Feb 22 2022Motion of respondent Mark Sachse to extend the time to file a response from February 23, 2022 to March 25, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 11 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2022.
- Feb 10 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 23, 2022 to March 25, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 24 2022Response Requested. (Due February 23, 2022)
- Jan 19 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
- Dec 06 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 7, 2022)