ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in St. Louis has denied an attempt by the owners of a scrap metal business to revive a long-running lawsuit against the city of Valley Park, ruling that the plaintiffs failed once again to provide sufficient factual support for their claims.
In an opinion, memorandum, and order signed Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey denied a motion by Lucas D. Kendall, Scrap Mart Properties LLC, and Scrap Mart LLC seeking to amend a prior order that had denied them permission to file a third amended complaint.
The ruling leaves in place the court’s earlier dismissal of the case and effectively closes the door on further amendments in the district court.
The lawsuit, filed in November 2021, centers on whether the plaintiffs’ scrap metal business was lawfully operating before Valley Park adopted a 2013 zoning code and therefore qualifies as a legal nonconforming use.
From the outset, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the business could continue operating despite zoning restrictions imposed after it began operations.
The city and other defendants repeatedly challenged those claims, arguing that the complaints lacked the factual detail necessary to establish that the business was legally operating under the applicable zoning ordinances at the relevant time.
The court agreed at every stage.
After the original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend.
Their first amended complaint, filed in December 2022, was also met with a motion to dismiss.
Following a hearing in May 2023, the court again concluded that the pleading was deficient but allowed the plaintiffs to try again.
The second amended complaint, filed in June 2023, fared no better.
The defendants moved to dismiss in July 2023, and after another hearing, the court granted the motion and dismissed the case in March 2024.
Autrey’s prior orders consistently emphasized that the plaintiffs relied on conclusory assertions rather than concrete facts showing the scrap business was legally established under zoning rules in effect at the time.
According to the court, the plaintiffs repeatedly pointed to the issuance of licenses as proof of legality without explaining how those licenses demonstrated compliance with zoning ordinances.
None of the complaints, the court found, connected the licensing history to the zoning requirements necessary to establish a lawful nonconforming use.
In their latest filing, the plaintiffs asked the court to amend its order denying them leave to file a third amended complaint, effectively seeking reconsideration. Autrey noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for reconsideration, and such requests must be analyzed under specific rules governing post-judgment relief.
The court examined whether the motion could succeed under Rules 59(e) or 60(b), which allow courts to alter judgments or grant relief from final orders in limited circumstances. Judge Autrey concluded that none of the applicable standards were met.
The plaintiffs did not present newly discovered evidence, allege fraud or misconduct or show that the judgment was void or inequitable.
While Rule 60(b) can permit relief for judicial mistakes or other extraordinary reasons, the court noted that it cannot be used simply to reargue issues already decided.
The judge found that the plaintiffs’ arguments largely reasserted positions previously rejected and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting extraordinary relief.
Autrey also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the court improperly took judicial notice of zoning ordinances.
Even if that argument were accepted, he wrote, it would not cure the fundamental deficiency in the pleadings: the absence of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim.
“Plaintiffs have had a fair opportunity to argue their position throughout the course of this litigation,” the court wrote, concluding that nothing new had been offered to justify revisiting the earlier rulings.
The order formally denies the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the order denying leave to file a third amended complaint, leaving the dismissal intact.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:21-cv-01353
