Does v. Presley

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION JOHN DOES 1, 2, 4,5,6 & 8; MICHAEL ROBINSON; and MAURICE COLLINS PLAINTIFFS Vv. No. 3:23-cv-230-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 9-12 & 14-16; and NATHAN HARMON PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:24-cv-3-DPM EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 19-30 PLAINTIFFS No. 3:24-cv-12-DPM EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 101-107; and JANE DOES 101-107 PLAINTIFFS Vv. No. 3:24-cv-14-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOES 108-113; JANE DOE 109; and JAMI WELLS PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:24-cv-13-DPM EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Clarifying response, Doc. 125, received with thanks. The Court also appreciates the redlined third amended consolidated complaint, which was emailed to chambers and opposing counsel on 7 May 2025. 2. Stipulation of dismissal, Doc. 127, noted.” John Does 25, 27, and 28 are dismissed; and their claims are dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court also notes that these three plaintiffs are the only three Arkansawyers in case No. 3:24-cv-12-DPM. Without them, the Court can exercise diversity jurisdiction in that case. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). But “jurisdiction follows from (and only from) the operative pleading.” Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025). So the Court also drops these plaintiffs from the third amended consolidated complaint, Doc. 126. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572-73 (2004). Motion to nonsuit, Doc. 121, granted as specified. 3. Because the plaintiffs have not re-pleaded their federal claims, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the non-diverse cases: No. 3:24-cv-13-DPM and No. 3:24-cv-14-DPM. Royal Canin U.S. A., Inc.,

* The Court asked for a stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because the plaintiffs initially re-pleaded their federal claims. Doc. 124. Had the plaintiffs been clearer about the jurisdictional need, the Court would have simply granted their unopposed motion to drop John Does 25, 27, and 28 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Doc. 121.

_2-

604 U.S. at 35-37. As the Court has already explained, those cases will be dismissed without prejudice. Doc.117 at 4; Doc. 120 at 10. So Ordered. LID Gt p- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 13 Many 2005

_3-