MEMORANDUM

MARY PAT THYNGE, Chief Magistrate Judge.

Since December 31, 2014, plaintiff, Younes Kabbaj, has filed a number of complaints or amended or substitute complaints, a motion for permission to proceed with proposed complaints and to revoke the consent decree and an emergency motion to approve a lawsuit.1 In this initial review, the court will focus on which motions and complaints survive and allow the releasees to respond to those matters remaining.

The complaints found at D.I. 93 and 97 are essentially the same, except with the addition of three individuals and additional Joe Does.2 Plaintiff represents that no new claims in D.I. 97, a notice of substitution with the proposed amended complaint attached as exhibit 01, have been asserted against the original defendants in proposed complaint D.I. 93. Since plaintiff is requesting that D.I. 97 be substituted for D.I. 93, the complaint at D.I. 93 is mooted by the complaint attached to plaintiff's notice of substitution at D.I. 97. As a result, the "first amended complaint" found at D.I. 93 is denied as moot.3

Regarding D.I. 97, the same or similar complaint is found at D.I. 103 attached as Exhibit 2 to plaintiff's emergency motion requesting to proceed with the proposed complaints and revocation of the consent order. This complaint is referred to as the "Simpson Complaint" in the motion. Plaintiff requests permission to file and proceed with this complaint. By this request, plaintiff is indicating that other prior similar complaints are either being amended or superceded by the complaint attached as Exhibit 2 to D.I. 103. Therefore, the complaint found at D.I. 97 is mooted by D.I. 103, Exhibit 2.

D.I. 85, also identified as a first amended complaint, appears to be the same or similar complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to D.I. 103. It is referred to in the motion at D.I. 103 as the "AST Complaint."4 This 19 page motion requests that plaintiff be allowed to file this complaint.5 It again appears that plaintiff is substituting or using the complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to D.I. 103 in lieu of the complaint filed at D.I. 85. Therefore, the proposed complaint at D.I. 85 is mooted by D.I. 103, Exhibit 1.6

There is also a "motion to substitute and/or amend complaint and engage in pre-Rule 26(f) discovery" filed as D.I. 96. No proposed complaint is attached to the motion; however, a proposed complaint is filed at D.I. 95 which appears to be related to this motion. Further, plaintiff represents in his motion at D.I. 96 that a "new" complaint was filed contemporaneously.7 This proposed complaint was originally filed in a federal court in Florida, in contravention of the Consent Order, transferred to Delaware because of the Consent Order and became another matter in this court, specifically C.A. No. 14-1484.8 The motion requests that the matter be transferred or returned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.9

The proposed complaint at D.I. 95 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for defamation and tortious interference with contract against various John Does 1 through 108. It identifies plaintiff as a citizen of Florida and represents that John Does 1 through 33 are citizens of New York, Oregon or Paris, France. No identification of residence or citizenship is made regarding John Does 34 through 108. Count one demands declaratory and injunctive relief for unlawfully targeting plaintiff and his former employer with false allegations. It also requests declaratory relief from the John Does for engaging in tortious interference with the previous settlement agreement in this matter. Count two asserts a defamation claim. Count three, similar to Count one, also requests declaratory relief for purported tortious interference with the settlement agreement "with his previous employer by engaging in a defamation campaign against him."10

Concerning the John Doe defendants, this court previously concluded the listing of John Does with IP or website addresses insufficient for subject matter jurisdiction. For all claims in this proposed complaint, the only basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity, which requires complete diversity of citizenship for any federal district court to have subject matter jurisdiction.11 Plaintiff represents he is a citizen of Florida. For most of the unidentified John Doe defendants, their citizenship is not alleged, nor can it be represented despite plaintiff's general, unsupported averment in paragraph 6 of diversity of citizenship.12 "[B]ecause the existence of diversity jurisdiction cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant's place of citizenship, `John Doe' defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits."13 Generally, "`fictitious-party pleading'" is not permitted in federal court.14

Plaintiff requests this complaint be transferred to a Florida district court. The Florida federal courts have dismissed similar complaints filed by plaintiff for failing to establish personal jurisdiction and/or proper venue.15 Nothing in plaintiff's proposed complaint at D.I. 95 demonstrates that the district courts in Florida, specifically the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, have the proper venue or personal jurisdiction over the John Does, including those John Does for who some citizenship has been identified. Therefore, transfer of the proposed complaint to the federal court requested would be futile since it suffers from the same infirmaries resulting in prior dismissals.16 As a result of the findings herein, plaintiff's motion to substitute and/or amend complaint and engage in pre-Rule 26(f) discovery at D.I. 95 and 96 is denied.

In addition, an emergency motion is filed which requests to proceed with the certain proposed complaints and revocation of the consent order.17 As previously referenced in this decision, attached to the motion are the AST and Simpson Complaints.18 Also attached is a "Master Appendix of Exhibits" listed in chronological order by date of publication, as well as plaintiff's "summary" of and selected quotes from the list of the exhibits.19 No exhibits were attached, although plaintiff notes they have been submitted in support of an appeal in the Third Circuit.20

Plaintiff filed a number of complaints over a three month period. This decision has addressed all complaints except those contained in D.I. 103. Since the court has provided direction regarding which pleadings and/or filings survive, any response by any releasee to plaintiff's motion and the complaints at D.I. 103 shall be due on or before December 8, 2015.

The appropriate order shall follow.