Hallmark Care Services Inc et al v. Superior Court of the State of Washington for Spokane County, et al

Filing 16

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS AND ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, granting 13 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Senior Judge Justin L. Quackenbush. (LR, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

HALLMARK CARE SERVICES,
INC., et al.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF
)
WASHINGTON FOR SPOKANE
)
COUNTY; SPOKANE COUNTY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

NO. 2:17-CV-00129-JLQ
ORDER RE: MOTION TO
DISMISS AND ROOKER-FELDMAN
DOCTRINE

15

The court held a telephonic conference on June 8, 2017, at the time set for the Rule

16

16 Scheduling Conference. John Pierce appeared for Plaintiffs. Paul Kirkpatrick

17

appeared on behalf of Defendants. Defendants on May 19, 2017, filed two motions: a

18

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and a Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 13).

19

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Dismiss would be due

20

June 9, 2017, and the response to the Motion for Protective Order was due June 2, 2017.

21

The Motion to Dismiss did not raise the issue of application of the Rooker-

22

Feldman doctrine, but the court raised it sua sponte at the June 8, 2017 hearing. “When

23

a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua

24

sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.” Gonzalez v. Thaler,

25

565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). Under Rooker-Feldman, “a federal district court does not have

26

subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state

27

court.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

28

ORDER - 1

1

The doctrine takes its name from two Supreme Court decisions: Rooker v. Fidelity

2

Trust, 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

3

The Ninth Circuit has explained the doctrine as follows:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

A party disappointed by a decision of a state court may seek reversal of that
decision by appealing to a higher state court. A party disappointed by a decision
of the highest state court in which a decision may be had may seek reversal of that
decision by appealing to the United States Supreme Court. In neither case may the
disappointed party appeal to a federal district court, even if a federal question is
present or there is diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Motion to Dismiss states in relevant part that the Washington Court of Appeals
entered an order holding: “Plaintiffs had no standing to assert their claims because they
did not have a proprietary, pecuniary, or personal right in the continued guardianships.
Finding that result unsatisfactory, Plaintiffs then brought the instant action in federal
court.” (ECF No. 11, p. 2). This framing of the issue by Defendants, raises the issue of
whether this is de facto appeal to federal court, which is precluded by Rooker-Feldman.
As the parties have not briefed the issue, the court will allow both sides

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

additional time to file response and reply briefs, addressing the issues raised in the
Motion to Dismiss and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In addition to the cases cited
supra, the court also directed the parties to Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th
Cir. 2004) during the telephonic hearing.
The Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 13) requests the court stay discovery
until the Motion to Dismiss is resolved. Plaintiffs have not opposed the Motion, and the
14-days for doing so has expired. LR 7.1(b). The court may construe the failure to timely
respond as consent to the Motion. LR 7.1(d). Additionally, the parties jointly proposed
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures be delayed until July 30, 2017. (ECF No. 9, p.
3). For these reasons, and due to the issue raised concerning subject matter jurisdiction,
the court will stay discovery.
ORDER - 2

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1. The Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. All discovery

3

is stayed until the court issues its decision on the pending Motion to Dismiss.

4

2. Plaintiffs shall file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, which also addresses

5

subject-matter jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, by no later than June 16,

6

2017.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

3. Defendants shall file a Reply, which addresses the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
by no later than June 30, 2017.
4. The Motion to Dismiss was noted for hearing without oral argument, and will
be deemed submitted on the briefs on July 10, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk shall enter this Order and furnish copies to
counsel.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2017.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3