Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Iskandar v. Embassy of State of Kuwait

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 24, 2015

RANDA ISKANDAR, Plaintiff,
v.
EMBASSY OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's [12] Motion to Reconsider. On May 28, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to properly effect service on Defendant and for failure to establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Mem. Op. (May 28, 2015), ECF No. [11], at 5-6. As the Court entered a final judgment dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's lawsuit, the proper course of action for Plaintiff's counsel would be to file a new lawsuit that has corrected the deficiencies noted by the Court in its May 28, 2015, Memorandum Opinion, or to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). Plaintiff now appears to be asking the Court to reopen the case, but has failed to set out any legal basis for vacating the Court's final judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or 60(b).

In her one-page Motion, Plaintiff's counsel simply indicates that Plaintiff caused the Complaint to be transmitted for service on the Government of Kuwait pursuant to the Hague Convention. Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ¶ 2. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff's Motion suggest that Plaintiff made a renewed attempt to effect service, this time pursuant to the Hague Convention, in February 2015-several months after Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and several months prior to the Court ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. This information was never brought to the Court's attention by Plaintiff at any time prior to the Court ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on May 28, 2015. Most importantly, Plaintiff does not provide any detail in her present Motion as to how this alleged service complies with the Hague Convention requirements. Nor does Plaintiff discuss the Court's primary ground for dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint-the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Plaintiff also seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint, but does not attach any proposed amended complaint to her Motion.

Accordingly, the Court shall DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's [12] Motion to Reconsider.

If Plaintiff does seek to reopen this final judgment, Plaintiff must file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) with thorough briefing of the legal basis for reopening this matter pursuant to either rule. Plaintiff's motion should also indicate why Plaintiff's counsel did not notify the Court that she had made a renewed attempt to serve Defendant allegedly pursuant to the Hague Convention several months prior to the Court ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to properly serve Defendant as one of the grounds for dismissal. Plaintiff's motion shall further indicate in detail how the service Plaintiff alleges to have effected on Defendant in February 2015 was in compliance with the specific service requirements of the Hague Convention. Plaintiff shall also address the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Finally, Plaintiff's present Motion simply indicates that "Plaintiff's claims may be time-barred by the statute of limitations, " id. ¶ 4. If Plaintiff chooses to file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), Plaintiff shall indicate when the statute of limitations expires and the legal basis for Plaintiff's calculation.[1]

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.