Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc.

#: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

AMANDA KULA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Cause No.:
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CITY OF PEVELY, MISSOURI, )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION

OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for her claim against Defendant

states as follows:

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff, Amanda Kula (“Plaintiff” or “Officer

Kula”), is a female citizen of the United States and was employed within Jefferson County,

Missouri.

2. Defendant, City of Pevely, Missouri (“Defendant” or “City”), is a municipal and

public entity located within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Defendant

operates the Pevely Police Department (“Department”).

3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C.

§1343, as well as 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, who worked within the

boundaries of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

5. The Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction within the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri and the events that give rise to this action occurred within the

1
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 2 of 11 PageID #: 2

boundaries of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1391, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is the proper venue.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about September 15, 2014, Plaintiff began her employment with the

Defendant as a reserve police officer for the Department.

7. On or about September 15, 2015, Plaintiff was hired as a full-time police officer for

the Department.

8. On or about December 5, 2017, Plaintiff left work early because her son was ill.

Sergeant Gregory Long (“Sgt. Long”) texted and told Plaintiff to acquire a doctor’s note because

then Captain Tony Moutray (“Capt. Moutray”) asked for it. Usually, the Department did not ask

for a doctor’s note unless an employee missed more than three (3) consecutive days. Further, two

weeks prior, then Officer Ryan Watson (“Off. Watson”) left work early to take his son to a doctor’s

appointment and was not required to provide a doctor’s note.

9. On or about February 7, 2018, Plaintiff discussed a pay issue with then Capt.

Moutray and also asked why Off. Watson was allowed to bring his patrol car home with him to

Eureka, MO, which was outside the Department’s fifteen (15) mile radius policy for a take home

patrol car. Plaintiff, at the time, lived in Affton, MO, which was seventeen (17) miles from the

City limits and was denied a take home patrol car.

10. On or about February 17, 2018, Corporal Ben Litterall (“Cpl. Litterall”), Plaintiff’s

immediate supervisor, issued her a written reprimand allegedly due to her “argumentative” and

“insubordinate” attitude. He called Plaintiff a “cry baby” and told her to toughen up. Cpl. Litterall

also said if she went to Human Resources (“HR”) to complain about how he treated her, other

officers would look at her as “one of those people” that runs to HR.

2
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 3 of 11 PageID #: 3

11. On or about March 2, 2018, then Capt. Moutray told Plaintiff to meet him at the

city park to discuss the written reprimand she received on or about February 17, 2018. Once there,

he informed Plaintiff that the disciplinary paperwork from Cpl. Litterall would not be placed in

her file and that Cpl. Litterall would receive training.

12. On or about April 9, 2018, then Capt. Moutray was promoted to the Chief position

of the Department (hereinafter referred to as “Chief Moutray”).

13. On or about May 7, 2018, Off. Watson was promoted to a corporal position of the

department (hereinafter referred to as “Cpl. Watson”), and Cpl. Litterall was promoted to a

sergeant position (hereinafter referred to as “Sgt. Litterall”).

14. On or about May 16, 2018, Plaintiff sent Cpl. Watson a memorandum stating the

pay raise she was granted was not reflected on her previous paycheck. Cpl. Watson forwarded the

memo to Captain Larry Miller (“Capt. Miller”). Subsequently, Plaintiff was advised by Capt.

Miller that the raise would show up on her paycheck soon.

15. On or about May 22, 2018, Plaintiff was finishing up her reports before leaving for

vacation the next day. Plaintiff was a bit behind but was told by Sgt. Long to “get done what you

can.” Sgt. Long also gave Plaintiff permission to leave one (1) hour early so she could pick her

son up at school.

16. On or about May 23, 2018, after complaining to then Capt. Moutray around

February 7, 2018 about new hires making more than her, Plaintiff received a pay raise from $17.33

per hour to $18.00 per hour.

17. On or about June 4, 2018, Plaintiff returned from her vacation and was written up

by Cpl. Watson for not finishing her reports and not following the chain of command. Plaintiff had

her patrol car taken away and was also suspended from working a traffic grant, which she depended

3
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 4 of 11 PageID #: 4

on for supplemental income.

18. On or about June 28, 2018, Plaintiff requested to be excused from working the

City’s movie night on July 14, 2018 because her partner’s sister was getting married that evening.

19. On or about July 2, 2018, because the City planned a movie night at the park on

July 14, 2018 and her attendance was allegedly mandatory, Plaintiff was told that she needed to

provide documentation of her partner’s sister’s wedding that they were to attend on her scheduled

day off. Two male officers, Tim Schiele and Joe St. Clair (“Off. St. Clair”), could not attend the

movie night for various reasons and were not asked to provide documented proof of their

whereabouts.

20. On or about July 3, 2018, Plaintiff forwarded Capt. Miller the requested

documentation of her partner’s sister’s wedding. Included in her email correspondence was a

forwarded message from her partner.

21. On or about July 3, 2018, Chief Moutray responded to the documentation Plaintiff’s

partner provided about the wedding and to Plaintiff’s partner’s response to Chief Moutray’s

request. He told Plaintiff’s partner there was no policy stating when the Department could request

further documentation for requested days off and assured her his request was not “discriminatory”

or “intrusive.”

22. On or about July 4, 2018, Plaintiff’s partner responded to Chief Moutray saying,

she felt he was signaling out Plaintiff and discriminating against her because she was a female.

23. On or about July 30, 2018, Plaintiff went on medical leave for a foot injury and

subsequently was informed she was pregnant.

24. On or about August 1, 2018, while Plaintiff was on medical leave, fellow officers

advised Plaintiff that her belongings, both personal and Department issued, had been piled up in

4
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 5 of 11 PageID #: 5

the patrol room, unsecured, and her patrol vehicle had been reassigned to another officer. Two

other male Department employees, Corporal Steve Coon and Officer Dean Rodgers, had

previously been on medical leave and neither had their patrol vehicle reassigned.

25. On or about August 20, 2018, Plaintiff returned to work on a light duty basis and

advised the Department about her pregnancy.

26. On or about August 23, 2018, Plaintiff was issued a written reprimand for:

inefficiency in the use of time and in the performance of duties, unexcused tardiness, failure to

follow verbal or written instructions, and failure to carry and maintain official department

equipment. Chief Moutray advised Capt. Miller and Sgt. Long not to provide Plaintiff with

documentation regarding the basis for the written reprimand. Plaintiff attempted to appeal this

written reprimand numerous times to Capt. Miller but was consistently told the paperwork was not

done yet.

27. On or about September 11, 2018, Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage and subsequently

went out on medical leave to recover for nearly eight (8) weeks.

28. On or about October 31, 2018, Cpl. Watson, while at the police station, yelled “I

can’t wait to fire that dyke bitch” to Off. St. Clair, Detective Corporal Brian Benjamin (“Det. Cpl.

Benjamin”), and others in the hallway. Cpl. Watson was apparently upset he had to work on

Halloween to cover Plaintiff’s shift while she was out on medical leave because of her miscarriage.

29. On or about November 5, 2018, Plaintiff returned to work from her medical leave.

30. Subsequently, on or about November 5, 2018, Plaintiff was informed that Cpl.

Watson told others he believed Plaintiff made up the pregnancy and that he wanted to fire her

because he had to cover for her while she was on medical leave because of her pregnancy.

31. Later, on or about November 5, 2018, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Capt.

5
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 6 of 11 PageID #: 6

Miller and Det. Cpl. Benjamin and asked about a previous sexual encounter she had with Sgt.

Litterall. Plaintiff advised them the encounter occurred in or around December 2016. Plaintiff told

them it was consensual but that afterwards Sgt. Litterall told her she "just [hasn’t] found the right

man yet." Plaintiff advised them she believed the encounter and Sgt. Litterall’s remark affected

his role as her supervisor and treatment towards her. Further, Cpl. Watson brought this to the

command staff’s attention after Dispatcher Jessica Richter told him about it on or about October

31, 2018, which was when he stated that he wanted to fire Plaintiff.

32. Also on or about November 5, 2018, Plaintiff was made aware that on November

29, 2018, Department personnel would be taking pictures in their dress uniforms.

33. On or about November 15, 2018, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Chief

Moutray and Cpl. Watson. Plaintiff was accused of purposefully delaying a report and hiding out

at the firehouse. Plaintiff was then banned from the firehouse, which no other officers had been

banned from.

34. On or about November 19, 2018, Plaintiff was written up for being involved in a

pursuit just outside the City limits. Sgt. Litterall and Cpl. Watson, however, had both previously

violated the pursuit policy and were not reprimanded.

35. On or about November 29, 2018, Department photos were being taken in dress

uniforms. Plaintiff had tried her dress uniform on a few weeks earlier, and it fit her fine. On picture

day, however, the waistband of her pants was too tight due to hormonal levels related to her

pregnancy. Plaintiff advised her supervisor that with her miscarriage, hormone issues, and

possibly being pregnant again, she could not fit in her uniform.

36. While attempting to get dressed on or about November 29, 2018, Plaintiff was

dispatched and responded to a vehicle accident to backup Cpl. Watson, who was already on scene.

6
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 7 of 11 PageID #: 7

Cpl. Watson told Plaintiff to interview the witnesses because he was conducting the investigation.

Plaintiff, without knowledge of Cpl. Watson’s investigation, was told by Cpl. Watson to write the

report. Plaintiff expressed her concern that she did not have the details about the accident to

complete a report, which caused Cpl. Watson to get extremely agitated, raise his voice, and say he

would do the report.

37. After returning back to the station from the call on or about November 29, 2018,

Capt. Miller took Plaintiff to the men’s locker room and gave her a men’s pair of pants that were

roughly six inches too long. After getting the replacement uniform on, Plaintiff was told to go

home. Plaintiff asked why she was being told to go home and was yelled at by Chief Moutray.

Plaintiff allegedly received a written reprimand for this incident but was not told about it until after

her termination. Off. St. Clair also missed the pictures because of a medical issue but was not

reprimanded.

38. On or about December 3, 2018, Cpl. Watson told Plaintiff to write the report for

the accident on or about November 29, 2018. Plaintiff again told Cpl. Watson that she did not have

enough information because she did not conduct the investigation into the accident, which again

caused Cpl. Watson to get agitated at Plaintiff. Cpl. Watson then told other officers that Plaintiff

had a bad work ethic.

39. Later, on or about December 3, 2018, Plaintiff reported the incident with Cpl.

Watson to Sgt. Long. Sgt. Long told her nothing was going to change and that if Plaintiff filed an

official complaint against Cpl. Watson it would just make the whole situation worse.

40. On or about December 4, 2018, after roll call, Sgt. Long held Cpl. Watson and

Plaintiff back to discuss the report writing issue. Cpl. Watson immediately got hostile, told Plaintiff

not to talk to him and said, “I shouldn’t have to hold her hand.” The meeting turned into a

7
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 8 of 11 PageID #: 8

screaming match between Sgt. Long and Cpl. Watson and culminated with Cpl. Watson saying

“I’m not touching that fucking report” before slamming the door on his way out.

41. On or about December 6, 2018, Plaintiff received a phone call that an alderman had

advised a friend to call Plaintiff and tell her they overheard Chief Moutray and an alderman say

they were “going to bring down the hammer on me.”

42. On or about December 12, 2018, the City’s Board of Aldermen held a meeting and

voted to terminate Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant. At the time, Plaintiff was given no

reason for her termination. Also at this meeting, The Board of Alderman voted to hire Officer

Nathan Corley (“Off. Corley”). Off. Corley did not go through the formal hiring process for the

Department.

43. On or about December 19, 2018, Plaintiff’s attorney appealed her termination and

requested the factual basis for her termination via email.

44. On or about January 10, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney, after receiving no response to

his email on or about December 19, 2018, emailed the Defendant again requesting an appeal

hearing and the factual basis for her termination.

45. On or about January 23, 2019, Plaintiff received a letter, allegedly from Chief

Moutray, who at the time was suspended himself, that detailed the allegations the Defendant used

to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. The letter listed three years of instances where Plaintiff

allegedly exhibited insubordinate behavior, many of which she was never made aware of.

46. On or about March 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s attorney, again, emailed the Defendant

requesting an appeal hearing.

47. On or about April 15, 2019, Defendant held Plaintiff’s appeal hearing.

48. On or about May 17, 2019, Defendant, via a letter identical to Chief Moutray’s

8
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 9 of 11 PageID #: 9

letter from January 23, 2019 affirmed Plaintiff’s termination based on the original charges. The

May 17, 2019 correspondence was allegedly written by Capt. Miller.

49. On or about June 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claiming that Defendant discriminated against

her based on her sex by treating her differently than similarly situated male employees.

50. On or about July 18, 2019, Plaintiff, through legal counsel, requested her Notice of

Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC.

51. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s termination by Defendant, she was hired as a police officer

by the City of Herculaneum (on or around January 30, 2019). The City of Herculaneum uses the

City of Pevely Police Department facilities for their jail. Previously, Herculaneum officers were

given access to the Pevely Department’s facilities. Upon Plaintiff’s hire by Herculaneum, the City

of Pevely denied all access to all of the Herculaneum officers until September 19, 2019. On or

about that date, the City of Pevely gave full access back to all of the Herculaneum police officers

but continues to restrict the access of Plaintiff.

52. On or about October 22, 2019, the EEOC issued its Notice of Right to Sue through

the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

53. This action has been filed within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the Notice of

Right to Sue.

COUNT I: SEX DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000E ET SEQ.

COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for Count I of her Complaint, states as follows:

54. Plaintiff, repleads and incorporates herein by reference, as if more fully set forth,

each and every allegation set forth in the Common Factual Allegations aforementioned as

Paragraph 54 of Count I.

9
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 10 of 11 PageID #: 10

55. Plaintiff is female and, at all times relevant herein, was performing her job at a level

that met or exceeded her employer’s legitimate expectations.

56. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant denied Plaintiff a

take home car.

57. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendant denied Plaintiff

from working a traffic grant.

58. Plaintiff suffered discrimination due to her sex and pregnancy, which culminated

in her termination.

59. Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§2000e-2(a)(1), by terminating Plaintiff because of her sex.

60. The effect of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices was to deprive Plaintiff

of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee,

because of her sex.

61. Defendant’s unlawful employment practices were intentional and done with malice

and with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

62. Plaintiff’s sex and pregnancy were motivating factors to Defendant’s

discrimination toward Plaintiff.

63. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has been

damaged in the form of lost wages and benefits of employment, emotional distress, and

humiliation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment in her favor against

Defendant for lost wages and other benefits of employment, compensatory damages, punitive

10
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 11 of 11 PageID #: 11

damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for such additional relief as may be

just and proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

THE KLOEPPEL LAW FIRM and THE LAW

OFFICES OF DANIELLE THOMPSON, LLC

By: /s/ Gregory Kloeppel

GREGORY KLOEPPEL, #47909MO
DANIELLE THOMPSON, #61688MO
2110 Collier Corporate Parkway
St. Charles, MO 63303
Phone: (636) 757-3916
Fax: (636) 757-3918
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

11
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 12
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Amanda Kula Pevely, Missouri, City of

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff St. Clair County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Jefferson
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

The Kloeppel Law Firm, Gregory C. Kloeppel

2110 Collier Corporate Parkway, St. Charles, MO 63303

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State

u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 835 Patent - Abbreviated u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 160 Stockholders’ Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability u 751 Family and Medical u 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act u 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: u 791 Employee Retirement u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 896 Arbitration
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General u 950 Constitutionality of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict u 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 2000E Et Seq.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violation of Plaintiff's civil rights
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
12/04/2019 /s/Gregory C. Kloeppel
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1-2 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Amanda Kula )
, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-3195
Pevely, Missouri, City )
of , )
)
Defendant, )
)

ORIGINAL FILING FORM

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIED BY THE FILING PARTY

WHEN INITIATING A NEW CASE.

THIS SAME CAUSE, OR A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT COMPLAINT, WAS

PREVIOUSLY FILED IN THIS COURT AS CASE NUMBER

AND ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE .

THIS CAUSE IS RELATED, BUT IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO ANY

PREVIOUSLY FILED COMPLAINT. THE RELATED CASE NUMBER IS AND

THAT CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE . THIS CASE MAY,

THEREFORE, BE OPENED AS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING.

NEITHER THIS SAME CAUSE, NOR A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT

COMPLAINT, HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY FILED IN THIS COURT, AND THEREFORE

MAY BE OPENED AS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING.

The undersigned affirms that the information provided above is true and correct.

Date: 12/04/2019 /s/Gregory C. Kloeppel

Signature of Filing Party
 Case: 4:19-cv-03195-JCH Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 12/04/19 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 14

AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District
__________ DistrictofofMissouri
__________

Amanda Kula )
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-3195
City of Pevely, Missouri )
Defendant )

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Gregory C. Kloeppel

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,
two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s
jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within
60 days from 12/04/2019 , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the
United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:
Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons
and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in
the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has
no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property.

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of
a summons or of service.

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff
and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.