Mohammed Alnaher v. Anaheim Hotel Investment, LLC and Firstpathway Partners, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MOHAMMED ALNAHER, Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-344-pp v. ANAHEIM HOTEL INVESTMENT, LLC and FIRSTPATHWAY PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants.

ORDER REMINDING PLAINTIFF OF OPTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF RESPONDING TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 9)

On May 1, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 9. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has not established subject matter jurisdiction because he has not identified the citizenship of every member of each defendant LLC. Dkt.

No. 10 at 1. The defendants argue that the plaintiff fails to state any breach of contract (Count I), “any breach that would serve as the requisite predicate to specific performance (Count V)” and any conversion (Count III). Id. at 2. The defendants argue that because the plaintiff alleges an enforceable contract and breach of that contract, his claim for unjust enrichment (Count II) cannot succeed because Wisconsin law does not permit recovery under both breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Id. Lastly, the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation/fraudulent concealment claim (Count IV) is barred by the statute of limitations and that the claim lacks the “requisite particularity.” Id. Under Civil Local Rule 7(b) (E.D. Wis.), if the plaintiff wishes to oppose the motion he must do so within twenty-one days—that is by May 22, 2026.

The plaintiff is free to timely file a response to the motion to dismiss, but the court reminds the plaintiff that he has another option—he may file an amended complaint to try to cure the alleged deficiencies. See Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. and Nw. Ind., 786 F3d 510, 522 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining that a responsive amendment may avoid the need to decide the motion or reduce the number of issues decided). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) allows the plaintiff to file the amended complaint as a matter of course within twenty- one days after service of the responsive pleading.

The court ORDERS that by May 22, 2026 the plaintiff shall file either an amended complaint or a response to the motion to dismiss.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 4th day of May, 2026.

BY THE COURT: Chief United States District Judge