Linehan v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.

Filing 297

ORDER granting plaintiff's 284 Motion to dismiss her WA Consumer Protection Act claim against dfts Audit & Adjustment Co and Kimberlee Walker Olsen by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

TIMOTHY LINEHAN, on behalf of
Plaintiff and a class,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13
14

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16

CASE NO. C15-1012-JCC

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Alexandra Hewardt Anderson’s motion

17 to dismiss (Dkt. No. 284). Anderson seeks a dismissal without prejudice of her Washington
18 Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) claim against Defendants Audit & Adjustment Company, Inc.
19 and Kimberlee Walker Olsen. (Id. at 1.)
20

Typically, a “plaintiff’s motion to dismiss a single claim of a multi-count complaint is

21 properly treated as a motion to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.” Gronholz v. Sears, Roebuck &
22 Co., 836 F.2d 515, 517 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, however, the pleading amendment deadline passed
23 a month before Anderson filed her motion. (See Dkt. Nos. 122, 284.) Thus, Anderson’s “ability
24 to amend h[er] complaint [i]s governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a).” See Johnson v. Mammoth
25 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Under the Rule 16(b) standard, Anderson
26 must show “good cause” to modify the case schedule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

PAGE - 1

1

Anderson argues that good cause exists here because, in light of the Court’s denial of

2 class certification, she determined that the amount of money at issue for her WCPA claim does
3 not justify the resources that would be expended. (Dkt. No. 294 at 2.) Anderson further asserts
4 that removing her WCPA claim will be more efficient for the parties and the Court. (Id.) Given
5 this efficiency, as well as Anderson’s relatively late joinder, the Court finds good cause to excuse
6 her untimely filing.
7

Accordingly, Anderson’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 284) is GRANTED. Anderson’s

8 claim is dismissed without prejudice.
9

DATED this 13th day of February 2017.

10
11
12

A

13
14
15

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2