Sarah Felts v. Joseph Vollmer

St. Louis, Missouri civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lewis Reed in his official capacity as President of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen alleging he violated her First Amendment rights by blocking her from his Twitter account in an act of viewpoint discrimination in a designated public forum. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 75, 79), which the Court denied, concluding that a question of fact existed as to whether Reed operated his Twitter account in his personal or official capacity (Doc. No. 101).



         On June 7, 2022, Reed resigned as President of the Board of Aldermen for reasons unrelated to this action, and Interim-President Joseph Vollmer was substituted for Reed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d). Vollmer then moved to dismiss this matter, arguing Plaintiff's claims against him were moot in light of Reed's resignation. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim to the extent it requested injunctive relief as moot, but declined to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief, nominal damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. (Doc. No. 127).



         The case proceeded as a bench trial on the merits on June 29, 2022. Plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel Lisa Hoppenjans, Tobin Raju, Molly Carney, Emily Lazaroff, Jessie Steffan, and Anthony Rothert; Vollmer appeared by counsel Steven Kratky. Evidence and testimony were adduced.



         Reed appeared at trial with counsel and, when called to testify, invoked the Fifth Amendment.[1]Rather than having Reed invoke the Fifth Amendment to a series of Plaintiff's questions at trial, the Court, with the agreement of counsel, directed Plaintiff to submit a list of questions she intended to ask Reed after the trial was concluded. (Doc. Nos. 139, 143). The Court also directed Vollmer to submit his proposed designations of Reed's deposition and a memorandum in support of their admissibility and the admissibility of Reed's affidavit. (Id., Doc. No. 145). Plaintiff objected to the admissibility of Vollmer's deposition designations and Reed objected to each of the questions Plaintiff intended to pose to him. Defendant did not submit any memorandum in support of the admissibility of Reed's affidavit. The Court reserved ruling on the parties' objections and included Reed's deposition designations, Plaintiff's counter-designations, and Plaintiff's questions to Reed in the trial record. (Doc. No. 155). The Court then directed the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within thirty days. (Id.). A transcript was prepared and has been made part of the record in this case. (Trial Transcript ("Trial Tr.”), Doc. No. 154).



         On September 6, 2022, the parties submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Doc. Nos. 158, 159). Having considered the arguments and evidence in the trial record as well as the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the Court enters judgment in Plaintiff's favor.

Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Joseph Vollmer.