Roundtree v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 13

ORDER denying plaintiff's 12 Motion to Reopen Case by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

YVONNE ROUNDTREE,
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REOPEN

11
12
13

Case No. C15-0760 RSM

v.

14

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff initially brought a Complaint against Microsoft, seeking millions of dollars in

19

damages on the basis that it had apparently refused to remove her photos and information about

20

prior arrests and jail time locate on the internet. On May 14, 2015, Defendant removed the

21
22

instant matter from King County Superior Court to this Court. Dkt. #1. In so doing, Defendant

23

noted that it had not yet been properly served, but that it had been made aware of the lawsuit

24

when members of the Board of Directors received copies of the documents in the mail. Id. On

25
26

June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice Contesting Validity of Removal” in which she stated that

27

she was moving for reinstatement of her case to the Superior Court. Dkt. #4. The Court

28

construed the Notice as a Motion to Remand, and directed Defendant to respond. Defendant

29
30

filed its opposition to the motion and Plaintiff replied.
ORDER– 1

Dkts. #6 and #7.

The Court

1
2

ultimately denied the motion. Dkt. #8. Defendant then moved to dismiss the case, which the
Court granted on October 9, 2015. Dkts. #9 and #11. The dismissal was with prejudice, and

3
4
5
6

the matter was closed.
Plaintiff has now moved to reopen her case, apparently to add as new Defendants
“Bing, Yahoo and Google, etc.,” for their failure to remove her photos and prior arrest

7
8
9
10

information from the internet, despite her multiple requests to do so. Dkt. #12.
This case was previously dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficiency of service of process and under Federal Rule of Civil

11
12
13
14

Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. #11. Nothing in Plaintiff’s
instant motion persuades the Court that it should reopen the matter to add new Defendants,
nor does Plaintiff provide any legal authority requiring that the Court do so.

15
16
17
18

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Dkt.
#12) is DENIED.
DATED this14th day of April, 2017.

19

A

20
21

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
ORDER– 2