Bykov v. Rosen et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Reconsideration signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

Download PDF
1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 VLADIK BYKOV, CASE NO. C15-0713-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 13 14 15 STEVEN G. ROSEN and his marital community, MICHELINE MURPHY and her marital community, MARCUS NAYLOR and his marital community, BRIAN ROGERS and his marital community, Defendants. 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 91) 19 of this Court’s order dismissing remaining state law claims without prejudice (Dkt. No. 93). 20 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h). “The court will 21 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or 22 a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 23 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 24 Plaintiff argues the Court committed manifest error in dismissing his claims because: (1) 25 the Court retains original jurisdiction over portions of his state law claims, and (2) the Court 26 failed to undertake sufficient analysis when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ORDER C15-0713-JCC PAGE - 1 1 2 remaining. (Dkt. No. 93 at 1–2.) Neither argument merits a reconsideration of the Court’s order. The Court does not have original jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this matter. 3 Plaintiff asserts that his legal malpractice claims fall under a narrow exception allowing a federal 4 court to exercise original jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily turn on issues of 5 federal law. (Dkt. No. 93 at 3.) However, this Court has dismissed the majority of the claims that 6 Plaintiff asserts fall under this exception. 1 (Dkt. Nos. 49 at 7, 56 at 2.) The Court also struck 7 these claims when Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint re-alleged them without the Court’s 8 leave. (Dkt. No. 79 at 2–3.) That Plaintiff has flaunted this Court’s orders and continued to assert 9 these arguments does not provide a basis for original jurisdiction. 10 Remaining issues of federal law are not significant enough to merit federal-question 11 jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed federal courts’ jurisdiction under 28 12 U.S.C. § 1331. See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg, 545 U.S. 308, 308, 13 311–312 (2005); Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 699 (2006). A 14 federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over a state-law claim only where the claim 15 “necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal 16 forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of federal and state 17 judicial responsibilities.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 314. 18 The only remaining relevant assertions in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are that 19 Ms. Murphy committed malpractice by failing to inform Judge Rosen that: (1) his refusal to 20 allow Plaintiff to write an objection on his signed medical waiver violated the First Amendment, 21 and (2) his failure to ascertain whether Plaintiff would waive his rights before being incarcerated 22 violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dkt. No. 59 at ¶¶ 96, 105.) Resolution of these claims will 23 24 25 26 1 The Court dismissed legal malpractice claims based on Plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to raise federal constitutional and statutory objections to Judge Rosen’s actions. (Dkt. Nos. 49 at 7, 79 at 2–3.) Multiple state courts concluded that Washington courts have the authority to order reasonable psychiatric treatment as a condition of probation, and Judge Rosen acted reasonably under this authority. (Dkt. No. 49 at 7.) On this basis, this Court concluded that, as a matter of law, an attorney does not commit legal malpractice by failing to make an objection to such authority based on the United States or Washington constitutions, ADA, or WLAD. (Dkt. No. 49 at 7.) The Court denied Plaintiff leave to amend these claims. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2.) ORDER C15-0713-JCC PAGE - 2 1 not, as Plaintiff claims, necessarily require a determination as to whether Plaintiff’s 2 constitutional rights were violated. (See Dkt. No. 93 at 2.) The actual and substantial disputed 3 issues here are whether Plaintiff can state a viable legal malpractice claim under Washington law 4 without showing he has obtained post-conviction relief, and whether he can show that Ms. 5 Murphy’s failure to raise these constitutional arguments proximately caused his detention. See 6 generally Ang v. Martin, 114 P.3d 637 (Wash. 2005) (discussing the elements of a Washington 7 legal malpractice claim); (Dkt. Nos. 80, 86). The Court did not commit manifest error by finding 8 that Plaintiff’s state-law claims, which will not turn on substantial questions of federal law, did 9 not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction. See Grable, 545 U.S. at 312. 10 The Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s remaining state law 11 claims. The Court undertook case-specific analysis “to determine whether denying supplemental 12 jurisdiction [comported] with the underlying objective of most sensibly [accommodating] the 13 values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 14 978–79 (9th Cir. 2004). Given the novel issues of state law Plaintiff’s arguments raise 2 and the 15 posture of the case, the Court determined that these factors weighed in favor of declining to 16 exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1),(3). That Plaintiff disagrees 17 with this analysis makes it neither conclusory nor manifest error. 18 Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 93) is DENIED. 19 DATED this 7th day of February 2018. 20 A 21 22 23 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 2 Plaintiff argues for an exception to the requirement under Washington law that he establish that he has obtained post-conviction relief in order to bring a legal malpractice claim. (See Dkt. No. 86.) ORDER C15-0713-JCC PAGE - 3

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?