Opinion
3:23-CV-863-NJR
11-28-2023
MILLERKING, LLC, on behalf of itself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DONOTPAY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Amend Order filed by Plaintiff MillerKing, LLC (“MK”). (Doc. 35). MK asks the Court to amend its November 17, 2023 Order in which the Court dismissed MK's Complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. (Doc. 34). The Order further provided that if MK did not file an amended complaint by December 18, 2023, the action would be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.).
As MK has correctly points out, however, a dismissal on standing grounds can never be with prejudice because the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. See White v. Illinois State Police, 15 F.4th 801, 808 (7th Cir. 2021) (“When a court dismisses a case for lack of Article III standing, it means that the court had no authority to resolve the case. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, is a ruling on the merits that precludes any claim encompassed by the suit. These concepts are mutually exclusive: A court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction cannot dismiss a case with prejudice.”) (internal quotations omitted); MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 935 F.3d 573, 581 (7th Cir. 2019) (“If a complaint fails to include enough allegations to support Article III standing for the plaintiffs, the court has only two options: it can either dismiss the complaint with leave to amend, or it can dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction and hence without prejudice.”).
The Court agrees that any dismissal of this action for lack of Article III standing should be without prejudice. For this reason, the Court GRANTS MK's motion and hereby AMENDS its November 17, 2023 Order by interlineation to provide that this entire action will be DISMISSED without prejudice if MK does not file an amended complaint on or before December 18, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.