Roundtree v. Microsoft Corporation
ORDER denying plaintiff's 12 Motion to Reopen Case by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
Case No. C15-0760 RSM
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Plaintiff initially brought a Complaint against Microsoft, seeking millions of dollars in
damages on the basis that it had apparently refused to remove her photos and information about
prior arrests and jail time locate on the internet. On May 14, 2015, Defendant removed the
instant matter from King County Superior Court to this Court. Dkt. #1. In so doing, Defendant
noted that it had not yet been properly served, but that it had been made aware of the lawsuit
when members of the Board of Directors received copies of the documents in the mail. Id. On
June 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice Contesting Validity of Removal” in which she stated that
she was moving for reinstatement of her case to the Superior Court. Dkt. #4. The Court
construed the Notice as a Motion to Remand, and directed Defendant to respond. Defendant
filed its opposition to the motion and Plaintiff replied.
Dkts. #6 and #7.
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
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
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
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.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Dkt.
#12) is DENIED.
DATED this14th day of April, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?