UPDATE: What a Maroon - Kletscher Files Late
Date: September 5, 2025
On September 5, 2025, attorney Bradley A. Kletscher of Barna, Guzy & Steffen finally filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Defendant BGS-one full day after the deadline set by the federal briefing schedule. No motion for extension was filed, no good cause was offered, and no explanation accompanied the late submission.
How the Deadline Was Blown
Under the Court's scheduling order, Kletscher's Motion to Dismiss was due on September 4, 2025. Plaintiff, who files by paper mail from out of state, met all of her deadlines. BGS, with full access to electronic filing and an entire firm behind them, did not.
Instead, on September 5:
- BGS e-filed a bare-bones Motion to Dismiss, missing the required memorandum of law.
- The filing appeared only after Plaintiff had finished drafting-and emailing Kletscher a courtesy PDF of- her forthcoming Motion for Default based on his missed deadline.
- That same day, the district court ledger recorded an unexplained $425 payment connected to the case.
The Quiet Memo Drop
Later on September 5, BGS attempted a silent course correction: a supporting memorandum finally appeared on the docket, uploaded hours after the late Motion to Dismiss. The memo was timestamped as if this were a normal sequencing of filings, but the record shows the motion and memo did not arrive together as required by the local rules.
In other words: first the deadline was missed, then the motion was dropped in late, and only after Plaintiff signaled her intent to seek default did a memorandum materialize.
Rule Problems, Not Just Bad Optics
The stunt creates several procedural issues:
- Missed deadline: The Motion to Dismiss was filed after the court-ordered date, without a request for extension or any showing of good cause.
- Non-compliant filing: Local rules require the memorandum of law to be filed with the motion, not patched in later once the opposing party has moved for default.
- Prejudice to Plaintiff: As a paper-filing, disabled pro se litigant, Plaintiff must prepare her responses without the luxury of last-minute electronic edits. Allowing BGS to "ghost update" their filings after the fact shifts the playing field in favor of the party who already blew the deadline.
Why It Matters
In isolation, a one-day late filing might look like a minor slip. In context, it fits a larger pattern: private counsel aligned with Ramsey County stretching deadlines, retrofitting arguments, and assuming the rules are flexible when applied to them—but rigid when applied to a disabled pro se litigant.
Plaintiff's subsequent Motion for Default and Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (granted) were direct responses to this maneuver. If BGS wants the Court to treat its arguments seriously, it will have to do something unfamiliar: file them on time and by the rules.