From Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity, determined by Decide Alan Johnson (D. Wyo.):
The matter earlier than us issues a lawsuit that was filed in March of 2023 by six ladies in opposition to their sorority and in opposition to Artemis Langford, a member of that sorority who had been admitted by means of regular procedures the earlier fall. {… KKG considers itself a “fraternity” in its governing paperwork. Nonetheless, emulating Plaintiffs and our nationwide discourse, the Court docket refers to KKG as a “sorority.”}
Plaintiffs, upset by the truth that Ms. Langford is transgender, requested this Court docket to void her admission, discover that the President of Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) violated her fiduciary obligations to the sorority, and forestall different transgender ladies from becoming a member of the sorority nationwide. We dismissed the criticism with out prejudice in August of 2023, holding, inter alia, that KKG’s freedom of expressive affiliation permits it to interpret the phrase “lady” in its bylaws nevertheless it needs.
In June of 2024, Plaintiffs’ attraction to the Tenth Circuit was additionally dismissed, on the grounds that our dismissal with out prejudice was not a remaining judgment as a result of we implicitly gave Plaintiffs depart to amend.
The Tenth Circuit clarified:
This courtroom has endorsed a course of for interesting an in any other case non-final dismissal of a criticism, explaining that “the place a district courtroom dismisses however grants depart to amend, the plaintiff could notify the district courtroom of his or her choice to face on the unique criticism and, as soon as a remaining order or judgment is entered, attraction the grounds for dismissal.” As a result of Appellants didn’t avail themselves of this course of, we can not conclude that this courtroom has jurisdiction over this matter. Within the district courtroom, Appellants could stand on their present criticism and search a dismissal with prejudice in order that they might good an attraction, or they might amend the criticism and pursue additional proceedings within the district courtroom.
Regardless of these directions, Plaintiffs have taken no motion: greater than 9 months after the Tenth Circuit issued its choice, they’ve neither amended their criticism nor notified us of their choice to “stand on the unique criticism,” which might enable them to obtain a remaining judgment that could possibly be appealed.
Defendants, hoping for some type of decision, have petitioned this Court docket to set a deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their criticism….
Allow us to be the primary to acknowledge that this case has ended up in a moderately complicated procedural Neverland. To summarize, the Tenth Circuit decided that our dismissal was not a remaining judgment as a result of we meant for Plaintiffs to good their criticism. Plaintiffs, nevertheless, haven’t carried out so; nor have they determined to face on their authentic criticism and attraction it. Consequently, the case stays in a Peter Pan-esque state of immaturity, stopping any courtroom from adjudicating on the deserves….
After discussing a number of totally different guidelines of civil process, the courtroom concluded that defendants’ movement must be handled as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) movement “to change or amend a judgment,” which on this context can be utilized as “a movement to impose a deadline”:
Typically talking, Rule 59 motions could also be granted on 4 grounds: the correction of manifest errors of regulation or truth, the invention of recent proof, the prevention of manifest injustice, or a change in controlling regulation. The current movement logically falls into the third choice: the prevention of manifest injustice. Because the Defendants argue, “The Court docket shouldn’t allow Plaintiffs to carry this case in abeyance whereas allies who’re additionally Kappa shareholders assert equivalent shareholder spinoff claims in opposition to Kappa Fraternity Council members in different proceedings.” …
[W]e are additionally closing in on two years post-dismissal, and the non-final nature of our order may … enable Plaintiffs to bypass Wyoming’s statute of limitations for contract claims and indefinitely lengthen their timeline to file this declare. [A Tenth Circuit precedent] not directly … prompt a Rule 59(e) movement by defendants would have been profitable there; we due to this fact see no cause why it shouldn’t additionally achieve success right here.
