govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_16-cv-01631-9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
 
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REVOCABLE ) 
TRUST, et al.,  ) 
 ) 
               Plaintiffs, ) 
 ) 
          v. ) Case No. 4:16-cv-01631-JAR 
 ) 
ANNE CORI, et al., ) 
 ) 
               Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on Anne Cori, Cathie Adams, Shirley Curry, Rosina 
Kovar, Carolyn McLarty, and Eunie Smith’s (“Individual Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss.  
(Doc. No. 142).  Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on October 19, 2016, alleging numerous 
claims against five John Does, Anne Cori, Cathie Adams, Shirley Curry, Rosina Kovar, Carolyn 
McLarty, and Eunie Smith.  Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice.  Defendants 
Smith, Adams, McLarty, Kovar, and Shirley (“Non-Cori Individual Defendants”) argue 
dismissal of all claims against them is appropriate because, even after amending their complaint 
twice, Plaintiffs have not made specific factual allegations concerning them.   
Individual Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 25, 2020 and Plaintiffs 
filed their response on September 8, 2020.  One week later, on September 15, 2020, Judge 
Dungan entered an order granting summary judgment in a related case.  See Anne Schlafly Cori, 
et al. v. Edward R. Martin, Jr., et al., Cause No. 2016MR000111.  (“State Court Order”).  The 
Individual Defendants argue this decision provides a separate and independent basis for 
Case: 4:16-cv-01631-RWS     Doc. #:  151     Filed: 11/03/20     Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to EagleForum.org.  (Doc. No. 149 at 3).  
Individual Defendants ask the Court to order briefing on the impact of the State Court Order. 
For the reasons set forth below, the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be 
granted in part and all claims against the Non-Cori Individual Defendant will be dismissed.  The 
Court further agrees that briefing on the impact of the State Court Order on Defendants Cori and 
Eagle Forum’s Motions to Dismiss is appropriate.  (Doc. Nos. 140, 142). 
LEGAL STANDARD 
To survive a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  
12(b)(6), a claim “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 
that is plausible on its face,’” meaning that it must contain “factual content that allows the court to 
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 
The reviewing court must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and construe them in 
plaintiff’s favor, but it is not required to accept the legal conclusions the plaintiff draws from the 
facts alleged.  Id. at 678; Retro Television Network, Inc. v. Luken Commc’ns, LLC, 696 F.3d 766, 
768-69 (8th Cir. 2012). Ultimately, the question is not whether the claimant “will ultimately prevail 
. . . but whether his complaint [is] suffic ient to cross the federal court’ s threshold.” Skinner v. 
Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011). 
DISCUSSION 
 The Non-Cori Individual Defendants move to dismiss because Plaintiffs failed to plead a 
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
8(a)(2).  Plaintiffs have made no non-conclusory factual allegations about any of the Non-Cori 
Case: 4:16-cv-01631-RWS     Doc. #:  151     Filed: 11/03/20     Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
Individual Defendants.  They have not met their burden, so dismissal of the claims against the 
Non-Cori Individual Defendants is appropriate. 
Plaintiffs filed their initial claim in October of 2016.  They have amended their complaint 
twice in the nearly four years that passed.  In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs still 
fail to allege a single fact about any of the Non-Cori Individual Defendants outside jurisdictional 
allegations.  Instead, they lump six named individuals and five John Does into a group they refer 
to as “Individual Defendants.”  Plaintiffs reference the Individual Defendants more than forty 
times in their Second Amended Complaint. However, with the exception of Defendant Anne 
Cori, Plaintiffs do not make a single allegation about any specific action taken by any of the 
Individual Defendants.  
Plaintiffs claim their Second Amended Complaint is adequately pled because it alleges 
the Individual Defendants acted in concert.  This does not relieve them of their obligation to set 
forth facts about the conduct of the individual defendants.  Plaintiffs had four years and three 
chances to make specific allegations about the conduct of the Non-Cori Individual Defendants.  
Instead, they make vague allegations attributing conduct to a group of up to eleven defendants.   
Allegations that a group of defendants “engaged in certain conduct, making no distinction” 
between the individual defendants does not comport with Rule 8(a). Magluta v. Samples, 256 
F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001).   
Plaintiffs ask that the Court grant them leave to amend their complaint to correct any 
defects.  “Persistent violations of Rule 8…will justify dismissals with prejudice.” Larson v. Stow, 
36 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 1994).  Plaintiffs have amended their complaint twice already. Their 
claim is dismissed with prejudice. 
Case: 4:16-cv-01631-RWS     Doc. #:  151     Filed: 11/03/20     Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
Individual Defendants further propose the parties separately brief the impact and effect of 
the State Court Order on claims related to the ownership of Eagleforum.org.  The order was 
published after most of the briefing on the current motion.  Briefing on the impact of the State 
Court Order before the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Anne Cori and 
Eagle Forum’s Motion to Dismiss is appropriate. (Doc. Nos. 140, 142). 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Individual Defendant’s M otion to Dismiss, (Doc. 
No. 140), is GRANTED in part. All claims asserted against Defendants Cathie Adams, Shirley 
Curry, Rosina Kovar, Carolyn McLarty, and Eunie Smith are DISMISSED with prejudice. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining Defendants shall brief the Court on the 
impact of the Judgment and Order entered September 14, 2020 in Cause No. 2016MR000111 
within fifteen days of the date of this order.  Plaintiffs shall have ten days to respond. 
 
 
   
 JOHN A. ROSS 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2020. 
 
Case: 4:16-cv-01631-RWS     Doc. #:  151     Filed: 11/03/20     Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight