Qatar Investment & Projects Development Holding Company W.L.L. (QIPCO) et al v. Doe, John
ORDER denying 61 Motion to Stay Proceedings and the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/13/2018. (voc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QATAR INVESTMENT & PROJECTS
DEVELOPMENT HOLDING COMPANY W.L.L.
and HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH HAMAD BIN
ABDULLAH BIN KHALIFA AL-THANI,
At a January 9, 2018 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, the court gave
plaintiffs until February 8 to provide the court with (1) authority indicating that it may enter
default judgment despite having good reason to question the basis for subject matter
jurisdiction or (2) information showing that plaintiffs are pursuing a productive avenue of
discovery that will likely yield information about defendant’s citizenship to establish diversity
jurisdiction. It warned plaintiffs that if they did not provide one of these two items, the court
would dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 60. On February 8,
plaintiffs responded to the court not with the requested information but with a motion to stay
the case for a year, explaining that they cannot find authority supporting entry of default
judgment and they are reluctant to expend further resources on discovery, but they don’t want
to “start all over” if defendant resumes its defamatory conduct in the future. Dkt. 61, at 2.
The court is disinclined to let cases lie fallow for so long. And here, there’s no need to
do so. “A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not on the merits” and therefore is
without prejudice. Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602, 605 (7th Cir. 2006). The court will
dismiss the case without prejudice to plaintiffs’ reopening upon a showing of good cause such
as a productive avenue of discovery likely to yield information about defendant’s citizenship
to establish diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the proceedings, Dkt. 61, is DENIED.
2. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. The clerk of court is ordered to enter judgment in favor of defendant John Doe and
close this case.
Entered February 13, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?