UWM Student Association v. Michael Lovell
888 F.3d 854
7th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are the UWM Student Association and multiple current/former UWM students who sued university officials, Board of Regents, and a rival student association, alleging a multi-year conspiracy to oust elected student leaders and install a "puppet" student association.
- Litigation was removed from Wisconsin state court; plaintiffs amended their complaint multiple times and named 37 defendants across claims spanning several years.
- Operative complaint included five § 1983 counts (due process, First Amendment retaliation, one Free Exercise claim), a Wisconsin state-law right-to-organize claim (Wis. Stat. § 36.09(5)), and a Wisconsin public records claim.
- The district court dismissed certain defendants for lack of timely service, dismissed the state right-to-organize claim on sovereign immunity grounds, and dismissed the remaining federal claims as improperly joined — dismissing the whole suit with prejudice.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for untimely service as to several named defendants and affirmed dismissal of the state right-to-organize claim but on mootness grounds rather than sovereign immunity. The court vacated the dismissal with prejudice for misjoinder, holding severance or dismissal without prejudice is the proper remedy, and remanded counts 1–5 and 7 as to the remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timely service after removal (28 U.S.C. § 1448 & Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)) | Service was effectively extended by allowance of amended complaints and later filings | Service deadline ran from removal; plaintiffs did not serve within 120 days and offered no good cause or excusable neglect | Affirmed dismissal of claims against defendants not timely served; Rule 4(m) governs and plaintiffs failed to show good cause or justify equitable extension |
| Right-to-organize claim under Wisconsin law (Wis. Stat. § 36.09(5)) | Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to restore student governance and prevent future interference | Defendants argued sovereign immunity and lack of redressability / mootness | Affirmed dismissal of the claim, but on Article III mootness grounds (injunctive/declaratory relief would not redress stale injuries) |
| Joinder/misjoinder of multiple plaintiffs/defendants (Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20, 21) | Claims arise from a common scheme and may be joined under Rules 18/20 | Defendants argued the claims are unrelated and misjoined, causing prejudice and inefficiency | District court correctly found misjoinder, but erred by dismissing with prejudice; remedy is severance or dismissal without prejudice; remanded for further proceedings |
| Remedy for misjoinder | Plaintiffs argued dismissal improper; sought preservation of claims | Defendants sought dismissal of the sprawling suit | Court held Rule 21 bars dismissal for misjoinder; proper remedy is severance or dismissal without prejudice, not dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (Article III case-or-controversy requirement continues through all stages of litigation)
- Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2011) (timing of service rules and removed cases; Rule 4(m) guidance)
- Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 698 (7th Cir. 1987) (amended complaint does not restart service clock for previously named defendants)
- Coleman v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 290 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2002) (district court may extend Rule 4(m) deadline absent good cause in appropriate circumstances)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants must be brought in separate suits)
- Lee v. Cook County, 635 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2011) (misjoinder should be cured by severance or dismissal without prejudice, not dismissal with prejudice)
- Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012) (misjoinder resolved by severance under Rule 21)
- Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 (1974) (declaratory relief exception where ongoing policy continues to affect parties)
- Barany v. Buller, 707 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1983) (claims for injunctive/declaratory relief typically moot after expiration of officeholder’s term)