Schmidt v. Washington

Filing 16

ORDER On Defendant's 4 Motion for More Definite Statement and Plaintiff's 5 Motion to Remand by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) Modified on 8/7/2012-mailed copy of order to pltf (MD).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 WILLIAM SCHMIDT, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT v. 12 13 CASE NO. C12-1116 MJP CHARLES WASHINGTON, Defendant. 14 15 16 This comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 5) and 17 Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement. (Dkt. No. 4.) Having reviewed the motions, 18 the responses (Dkt. Nos. 7 and 8), the replies (Dkt. No. 10), and all related filings, the Court 19 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for a more definite 20 statement. 21 Background 22 Plaintiff William Schmidt (“Schmidt”) filed an action against Charles Washington 23 (“Washington”) in King County’s Small Claims Court for “theft and conversion of property.” 24 (Dkt. No. 1-1.) The “Notice of Small Claim” does not contain any factual or legal basis for its ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT- 1 1 allegation, but asserts Washington owes Plaintiff $1,977.87 as of June 1, 2012. Since 2 Washington is a Revenue Officer with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the United States 3 removed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2679(d)(2) and 1442(a)(1). 4 5 6 Analysis A. Plaintiff’s motion to remand Schmidt seeks to remand, arguing the United States was not properly substituted as 7 Defendant and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. 8 Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, any civil action commenced in a state court shall be 9 removed to the U.S. district court upon the Attorney General’s certification that the defendant 10 employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). The 11 Attorney General’s certification “conclusively establish[es] [the] scope of office or employment 12 for purposes of removal” and is prima facie evidence that substitution by the United States is 13 proper. Billings v. United States, 57 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 1995). The party seeking review 14 bears the burden of disproving the Attorney General’s certification by a preponderance of the 15 evidence. Id. 16 Here, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington certified that 17 Defendant Charles Washington was an employee of the Internal Revenue Service and was acting 18 within the scope of his employment at all relevant times. (Dkt. No. 2-1.) This conclusively 19 establishes the action was properly removed to the United States District Court. While Schmidt 20 argues the Internal Revenue Service is not a part of the United States government and that King 21 County is not within the Western District of Washington, Schmidt’s arguments are unpersuasive. 22 First, there is no question that the Internal Revenue Service is a government agency as it is a 23 bureau of the Department of Treasury and authorized by statute. 26 U.S.C. § 7803. Second, 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT- 2 1 venue is proper because the State of Washington has been a part of the United States since 1889. 2 The Enabling Act of 1889, ch. 180, 25 Stat. 676 (1889). Section 21 of the Enabling Act 3 established the United States District Court for the District of Washington, which was later 4 divided into an Eastern District and a Western District. As provided by statute, the Western 5 District of Washington includes King County. 28 U.S.C. § 128. 6 Since the IRS is a government agency and the Attorney General certifies that Defendant 7 was acting within the scope of his employment as a Revenue Officer, the Court finds removal 8 was proper and DENIES Schmidt’s motion to remand. 9 10 B. Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement Defendant moves for a more definite statement. Schmidt refused to respond based on his 11 objections to removal. 12 Under the Federal Rules, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the 13 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, Schmidt’s 14 complaint does not meet federal standards. Schmidt’s pleading appears to be a state-issued 15 “Notice of Small Claim” form, which provides his name, his address, the amount claimed, and 16 the nature of the claim. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) While this may have sufficed in state court, the Federal 17 Rules require more. Schmidt’s pleading must set forth allegations that would support his claims 18 of theft and conversion of property. Since this action is properly before this Court and federal 19 standards now apply, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint complying with 20 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) 21 days of this order; failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. For 22 assistance, the Court refers Schmidt to the Court’s Pro Se Handbook, which is located at 23 www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/ReferenceMaterials/Publications/ProSeManual.pdf. 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT- 3 1 2 Conclusion The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a 3 more definite statement. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) 4 days of this Order. 5 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 6 Dated this 7th day of August, 2012. A 7 8 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT- 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?