Siddique v. Laliberte et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/18/2018. Plaintiffs to FILE an amended complaint in accordance with this Order by 7/2/2018 or this action will be dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute. See Order. (cc: all counsel)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UWM STUDENT ASSOCIATION, LENA-ROSE
M. ABU SAIF, ANDRES GABRIEL AGUILAR,
ALLA R. AHMAD, JAMEELA AL-ASMAR,
EMMA BORKOWSKI, PHILLIP A. COCHRAN,
GONZALO COUTO-LAIN, KEITH CRUM,
PAUL GARNI, USMAN GHAFFAR, REBECCA
L. HADRIAN, FLAUNTAJIA HARRIS,
BRITTNEY HENRY, LAWRENCE W. IVORY,
JR., SAMUEL A. JADIN, CASANDRA
JOHNSON, NORIELLE T. JOHNSON, KAYLA
BRIANNE KAPLAN, THOMAS KELLY, HEIDI
W. LAGERMAN, DANIEL S. LAUGHLAND,
KARINA D. LEMPERT, REBECCA LILLIE,
BRENT LINDQUIST, MICHAEL LUDWIG,
JONNELLI N. NAVES-GONZALEZ, DHARA
PAREKH, ALEX PARTEE, SHREYA PATNAIK,
SYED A. QADIR, VINCE CASIMIR ROLBIECKI,
LEYTON SCHIEBEL, ALIZAR S. B. SALEEM,
TREVOR THOMAS SCHERMERHORN,
WILLIAM J. SCHMIDT, TAYLOR Q. SCOTT,
AHMED SHEHADEH, MOHAMMAD SAMIR
SIDDIQUE, RYAN THOMAS STETZ, ANDREW
CARLYLE URBAN, KIARA A. WILSON,
KORINA YEE, and ALAN D. EISENBERG,

Case No. 15-CV-1-JPS

Plaintiffs,
v.
STUDENT ASSOCIATION AT UWM, DR.
MICHAEL LALIBERTE, DAVID STOCKTON,
RICHARD R. THOMAS, THOMAS G.
MCGINNITY, RYAN SORENSON, MARK A.
MONE, EDWARD C. MELCHIOR, NICOLE
HEINEN, CAMILLE RIDGEWAY, ROBIN JENS,
JOHN BEHLING, MARK BRADLEY, JOSE
DELGADO, TONY EVERS, MICHAEL FALBO,
MARGARET FARROW, EVE HALL, NICOLAS
HARSY, TIM HIGGINS, EDMUND
MANYDEEDS, REGINA MILLNER, JANICE
MUELLER, DREW PETERSON, CHARLES
PRUITT, ANICKA PURATH, JOSE VASQUEZ,
DAVID WALSH, GERALD WHITBURN, and

ORDER

UW-MILWAUKEE PUBLIC RECORDS
CUSTODIAN,

Defendants.
Plaintiffs, current or former students at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee (“UWM”), assert several claims relating to actions taken by
UWM administrators against the student government and its officials. After
several rounds of motions to dismiss and amended complaints, the Court
finally dismissed the action with prejudice in an order dated June 21, 2017.
UWM Student Assoc. v. Lovell, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (E.D. Wis. 2017).
Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part. UWM Student Assoc. v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2018).
The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal of several previously
unserved Defendants, as well as the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ sixth
cause of action, a broadly written claim of interference with the students’
right to organize. Id. at 859–62. The Court of Appeals also agreed that the
remaining six claims were improperly joined under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 18 and 20 because they lacked a sufficient legal and factual
relationship with each other. Id. at 863–64.
However, the appellate court reversed this Court’s decision to
sanction the misjoinder through dismissal with prejudice. Id. at 864. It noted
that “[t]he proper remedy for violations of Rules 18 and 20 is severance or
dismissal without prejudice, not dismissal with prejudice.” Id. (citing
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012); Lee
v. Cook Cnty., 635 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir. 2011)). The Seventh Circuit
remanded the case for further proceedings. Id.

Page 2 of 3

Consistent with the directive from the Court of Appeals, the Court
will afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to elect which of the six remaining
claims they wish to pursue in this action. The others will be dismissed
without prejudice and may be reasserted in separate actions should
Plaintiffs elect to do so. Plaintiffs must file, no later than July 2, 2018, an
amended complaint containing only the claim they wish to assert in this
proceeding. If they do not, the action will be dismissed in its entirety for
their failure to prosecute. Civ. L. R. 41(b).1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint in
accordance with this Order no later than July 2, 2018.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Sometimes, dismissal without prejudice can raise concerns with the
running of the statute of limitations. Lee, 635 F.3d at 971–72. It is not clear whether
such a concern exists with respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, which are all
constitutional claims governed by a generous six-year statute of limitations, save
the seventh claim, which arises under Wisconsin open-records law. See UWM
Student Assoc., 266 F. Supp. 2d at 1125–28. The open-records claim is of little
moment, however; it could never stand on its own in federal court since it lacks a
viable basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, severing that claim would lead
to its immediate dismissal. Further, as to the constitutional claims, even if their
limitations period nears expiration, Plaintiffs, who have attended to this case for
many years already, should be able to quickly file new complaints to avoid the
limitations bar. In the end, whatever the concerns expressed by Judge Easterbrook
in Lee, the Court of Appeals has expressly dictated in this case that either severance
or dismissal without prejudice is available as a remedy for the present problem.
UWM Student Assoc., 888 F.3d at 864.
1

Page 3 of 3