First Sound Bank v. Larasco Inc et al

Filing 267

ORDER DENYING docket # 237 , Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (KL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE FIRST SOUND BANK, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. LARASCO, INC., a Washington corporation, LOUIS A. SECORD, JR., an individual; and RICHARD A. SECORD, an individual, Defendants. C09-56Z ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Roberts/Severson Entities's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, docket no. 237. Having considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court enters the following Order. The Roberts/Severson Entities' motion to dismiss the claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. Plaintiff First Sound Bank's Third Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997). The claims against the Roberts/Severson Entities are so related to the federal question as to fall within a common nucleus of operative fact. See Trustees of the Constr. Indus. and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc. (Desert Valley), 333 F.3d 923, 925
ORDER - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(9th Cir. 2003); see also Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996); Dewey v. West Farimont Gas Coal Co., 123 U.S. 329, 332-33 (1887). The Roberts/Severson Entities have not shown that such exceptional circumstances exist that principles of economy, convenience, fairness and comity would be better served by pursuing the claims against them in state court. See Desert Valley, 333 F.3d at 925. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of October, 2009.

A
Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge

ORDER - 2