Halvorsen v. Peterson Enterprises Inc

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 6 . Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

COURTNEY HALVORSEN,
NO: 2:16-CV-00287-RMP
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

9
10

PETERSON ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Washington corporation, dba VALLEY
EMPIRE COLLECTION,

11
Defendant.
12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

14

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

12(b)(1). ECF No. 6. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1),

16

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6), Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s

17

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 10), and Plaintiff’s

18

Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 12), and is fully informed.

19
20
21

BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2015, Defendant filed a writ of garnishment and an affidavit
for garnishment in support of the writ to collect a judgment of $451.70, accrued
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 1

1

interest of $4.61, and collection costs of $134.00 for a total of $590.31. ECF No.

2

7-1. This writ of garnishment instructed Plaintiff’s employer to withhold funds

3

owed to Plaintiff in the amount of the judgment, interest, and costs. Id. On

4

October 15, 2015, the Spokane County District Court entered a Judgment on

5

Answer of Garnishee Defendant awarding Defendant, Peterson Enterprises, INC.,

6

the sum of $590.31 to be paid by Plaintiff’s employer from the withheld funds.

7

ECF No. 7-4. On November 4, 2015, Defendant filed a Satisfaction of Judgment

8

certifying that the judgment had been fully paid. ECF No. 7 at 5.
On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court requesting

9
10

class action status and asserting that Defendant’s writ of garnishment was invalid

11

because the affidavit for garnishment that accompanied the writ omitted essential

12

requirements under WASH. REV. CODE § 6.27.060 and attempted to collect fees and

13

costs on the void writ of garnishment. ECF No. 1. In the complaint, Plaintiff

14

alleges that this omission and the actions by Defendant violated the Fair Debt

15

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and

16

the Washington Collection Agency Act. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief includes a

17

request for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, money damages, and attorney fees.

18

Id.

19
20
21

JURISDICTION
Defendant’s challenge to Plaintiff’s complaint is focused on Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 6. The party asserting
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 2

1

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction on a motion

2

to dismiss for lack of such jurisdiction. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory

3

(DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, 546 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). Dismissal for

4

lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate if the complaint on its face,

5

considered in its entirety, fails to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter

6

jurisdiction. Id.

7

Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15

8

U.S.C. § 1692k(d), the FDCPA, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, Commerce and Antitrust

9

Regulations, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Federal Question, and supplemental

10
11

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ECF No. 1 at 3.
Defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-

12

Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 6. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional

13

rule that “prevents federal courts from second-guessing state court decisions by

14

barring the lower federal courts from hearing de facto appeals from state-court

15

judgments.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003); See also

16

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,

17

460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Ninth Circuit has found the following:

18
19
20
21

A de facto appeal exists when “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal
wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief
from a state court judgment based on that decision.” [Noel v. Hall, 341
F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003)]. In contrast, if “a federal plaintiff
asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by an
adverse party, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction.” Id. Thus,
even if a plaintiff seeks relief from a state court judgment, such a suit
is a forbidden de facto appeal only if the plaintiff also alleges a legal
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 3

1
2
3

error by the state court. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 950 (9th
Cir. 2004); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.
2004) (“[A] plaintiff must seek not only to set aside a state court
judgment; he or she must also allege a legal error by the state court as
the basis for that relief”).

4
Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013). If a claim is found to be a
5
de facto appeal, the federal plaintiff may not seek to litigate an issue that is
6
“inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision from which the forbidden
7
de facto appeal is brought. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158.
8
The facts alleged by Plaintiff on all causes of action orbit around the
9
omission of necessary language in the affidavit for garnishment prepared by
10
Defendant, and Defendant’s actions in attempting to execute an invalid writ. ECF
11
No. 1 at 7-12. While there is a Judgment on Answer issued by the state court,
12
Plaintiff is not asserting that the state court committed legal error in its judgment,
13
but rather asserts as a legal wrong an illegal act and/or omission on the part of
14
Defendant. As such, Plaintiff’s claims are independent of the state judgment that
15
was rendered against her and do not constitute a de facto appeal. Therefore, the
16
Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude subject matter jurisdiction.
17
The Court acknowledges that in paragraph 8.6 of the complaint, Plaintiff
18
requests injunctive relief under WASH. REV. CODE § 19.16.450. ECF No. 1 at 20.
19
Under this provision, if a violation of WASH. REV. CODE § 19.16.250 is established,
20
the licensee is precluded from collecting interest, service charge, attorneys’ fees,
21
collection costs, delinquency charges, or any other fees or charges other than the
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 4

1

original claim or obligation. The state court’s judgment addresses a garnishment

2

amount that includes interest, attorney fees, and additional fees. ECF No. 7-1 at 6,

3

7-4. Arguably, under this request for injunctive relief, Plaintiff is requesting relief

4

from the state court judgment. However, as set forth in Bell, since Plaintiff is

5

asserting a legal wrong resulting from the act or omission of an adverse party, even

6

with the request for relief from the state court judgment the complaint does not

7

constitute a de facto appeal. Therefore, this Court maintains subject matter

8

jurisdiction in this case under the statutes alleged by Plaintiff.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

10

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.

11

The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order, and provide

12
13
14

copies to counsel.
DATED July 14, 2017.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ~ 5