Supreme Court Report

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

Certiorari denied · May 2, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

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:

  1. 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”?

  2. 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

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. May 02 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Apr 13 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
  3. Apr 11 2022
    Reply of petitioner Mark Donelson filed. (Distributed)
    Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
  4. Mar 24 2022
    Brief of respondents Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al.
    Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
  5. Feb 24 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2022, for all respondents.
  6. Feb 22 2022
    Motion of respondent Mark Sachse to extend the time to file a response from February 23, 2022 to March 25, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
    Main Document
  7. Feb 11 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 25, 2022.
  8. Feb 10 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 23, 2022 to March 25, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
    Main DocumentProof of Service
  9. Jan 24 2022
    Response Requested. (Due February 23, 2022)
  10. Jan 19 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
  11. Dec 06 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 7, 2022)
    PetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of Service