Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05118/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05118-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 

BRYAN WILKINS, an individual,

REUBEN BARNES, an individual,

and ROBERT WILKINS and

MARY WILKINS, a married couple PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-5118

TRIAL LAWYERS, INC., an informal

enterprise affecting interstate

commerce, KENNETH N. McKINNEY, an

individual predicate actor, and

McKINNEY & STRINGER, P.C., an

enterprise acting as prime house for 

TRIAL LAWYERS, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now on this 22 day of February, 2006, comes on to be nd

considered plaintiffs’ Motion for Modification of Order of

Dismissal (Doc. 10). The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto: 

1. On January 25, 2005, the Court entered an order granting

defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

and Venue. (Docs. 4, 9.)

2. In the current motion, plaintiffs assert that the

dismissal “should have been without prejudice allowing the pro se

litigants [the] opportunity to amend the pleadings to cure defects

in pleading.” (Doc. 10 at pg. 1.)

3. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to contest the

jurisdictional issue in their response to defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Plaintiffs could have moved to amend their complaint to

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

assert additional facts that would support the exercise of

personal jurisdiction over defendants. However, plaintiffs did

not do so and the Court suspects that there are no facts that

would support personal jurisdiction. The Court will not reopen

this case and allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint at this

juncture.

4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the

dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was a dismissal

without prejudice. However, should plaintiffs re-file this

action, they will be collaterally estopped from relitigating the

jurisdictional issue and their case will be dismissed, with

attorney’s fees and costs awarded to defendants, unless plaintiffs

can establish that “critical jurisdictional facts have changed in

the interim.” Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax, Inc., 176 F.3d 1110, 1112 (8th

Cir. 1999). 

5. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ Motion for

Modification of Order of Dismissal (Doc. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:05-cv-05118-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>