Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00003/USCOURTS-ared-3_24-cv-00003-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

v. No. 3:23-cv-230-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et a!. DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOES 9-12 & 14-16; and

NATHAN HARMON PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:24-cv-3-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et a!. DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOES 19-30 PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:24-cv-12-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et a!. DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOES 101-107; and

JANE DOES 101-107 PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 3:24-cv-14-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et a!. DEFENDANTS

JOHN DOES 108-113;

JANE DOE 109; and JAMI WELLS PLAINTIFFS

V. No. 3:24-cv-13-DPM

EMMETT A. PRESLEY, et a!. DEFENDANTS

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 6
ORDER

The plaintiffs moved to nonsuit their federal claims at the

14 August 2024 hearing. The defendants objected, arguing prejudice.

The Court raised jurisdictional concerns. The parties have now briefed

the oral motion, the related jurisdictional issues, and some proposed

amendments to the complaint. Doc. 94. The briefs are helpful and

appreciated. The Court also needs to address plaintiffs' motion to take

some depositions now to preserve testimony.

*

The plaintiffs' oral motion to voluntarily dismiss their federal

claims is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Court sees no improper

purpose on their part. Tipping their hats to the Rule 12(b) motions,

the plaintiffs candidly acknowledge the cracks in their federal claims.

Doc. 100 at 2-3. As they put it, the defendants have essentially

"accomplished their goal" -dismissal of the federal claims. Doc. 108

at 5. The plaintiffs seek to nonsuit these claims to focus the issues,

not to shop forums. That's reasonable. And it will save time, money,

and judicial resources. Apart from the narrow limitations issues,

this case hasn't moved beyond the pleading stage. Voluntary dismissal

will not prejudice the defendants. Blaes v. Johnson & Johnson, 858 F.3d

508, 513 (8th Cir. 2017).

-2-

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 6
*

The lack of federal claims, though, creates the jurisdictional

questions that the Court raised at the hearing. This consolidated action

has five member cases; each one maintains its separate identity.

Enterprise Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235 (8th Cir. 1994). The first two*

cases invoked the Court's diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The other tbree** invoked the Court's federal question jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties agree that dismissal of the federal claims

has no effect on the diversity cases. The question is whether the Court

should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the three non-diverse

cases now that no federal claims remain. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Usually, the answer would be no. Zubrod v. Hoch, 907 F.3d 568,

580 (8th Cir. 2018). But this lawsuit presents unusual circumstances.

The Court must decide the same state-law questions in the two

diversity cases either way. Those issues are fully briefed; the parties

are now done with targeted discovery; and the Court anticipates a

merits ruling soon. Marshall v. Green Giant Co., 942 F.2d 539, 549-50

(8th Cir. 1991). Keeping all these claims together for pretrial purposes

makes good sense. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Page County, 102 F.4th 853,872(8th Cir. 2024).

* No. 3:23-cv-230-DPM & No. 3:24-cv-3-DPM.

** No. 3:24-cv-12-DPM, No. 3:24-cv-13-DPM, & No. 3:24-cv-14-DPM.

-3-

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 6
*

That leaves the proposed amendments to the consolidated

complaint. The plaintiffs wish to drop their federal claims, plus plead

facts showing that some of their state-law claims are timely under

Arkansas's delayed discovery statute, ARK. CODE ANN. 16-56-130.

That motion is denied without prejudice.

First, the plaintiffs have already nonsuited their federal claims.

Incorporating those changes into the current complaint would,

paradoxically, deprive this Court of supplemental jurisdiction over the

three non-diverse member cases. Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A.,

Inc., 75 F.4th 918, 924 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 1455 (2024);

see also Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1139-40

(8th Cir. 2014). Without a federal question in the live complaint,

there is nothing to attach the amended state law claims to, and

"the possibility of supplemental jurisdiction vanishe[s.]" Wullschleger,

75 F.4th at 924. This unintended result is at odds with the parties'

preference to move forward here on the whole case.

Second, the Court's mind has not yet come to rest on whether,

in the circumstances presented by this case, the proposed amendments

about the delayed discovery statute are needed. The Court will rule on

that issue when it decides the ripe motions for summary judgment.

The Court will make its decision on those motions after the Arkansas

Court of Appeals issues its opinion in H.C. v. Nesmith, CV-23-328.

-4-

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 6
That case has been set for oral argument in January 2025. And that

decision will be an important data point about the Justice for

Vulnerable Victims of Sexual Abuse Act. (This Court, though, does not

intend to wait for any petitions for rehearing or review to be sorted.

All that could take another year.)

*

Last, should there be some discovery now? Plaintiffs make a solid

showing based on the age and health of some defendants. But, the

defendants are correct that depositions before at least some written

discovery about the particulars of plaintiffs' claims would be unfair.

The issue is close, but the balance tilts against the immediate

depositions. Instead, the Court will propose a plan for expedited

discovery (including quick depositions of the older defendants) if the

case proceeds after the current motion for summary judgment.

*

The federal claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court

will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the three non-diverse

member cases. The plaintiffs' embedded motion to amend their

complaint is denied without prejudice. Their motion for expedited

discovery, Doc. 87, is also denied without prejudice as stated.

-5-

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 5 of 6
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

/

-6-

Case 3:24-cv-00003-DPM Document 14 Filed 12/16/24 Page 6 of 6