Roundtree v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 13

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

Download PDF
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

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?