Jama et al v. Golden Gate America LLC

Filing 55

ORDER granting Defendant Golden Gate America LLC's 45 Motion to Dismiss, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. Any and all claims against that Golden Gate are again DISMISSED. Plaintiffs' attorneys are hereby ORDERED to pay Golden Gate reasonable fees of $1,000 within fourteen days of the date of this order. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et al.,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
Case No. C16-0611RSL
v.
GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING GOLDEN
GATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On January 4, 2017, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against defendant
Golden Gate America LLC. Dkt. # 38. The Court found that Golden Gate was not a
“Transportation employer” subject to Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code
and that plaintiff’s claims against Golden Gate could not be saved by amendment. Leave
to amend was granted to add EAN Holdings LLC (d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car) as a
defendant on the theory that EAN Holdings is a “Transportation employer” under the
ordinance and qualifies as plaintiffs’ employer under the economic realities test set forth
in Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, LLC, 181 Wn.2d 186, 196-97 (2014).
Plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint, asserting claims against both Golden
Gate and EAN Holdings as joint employers. Regardless of whether Golden Gate, EAN
Holdings, or both employed plaintiffs, the Court has already determined that Golden Gate
ORDER GRANTING GOLDEN GATE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

1

is not subject to the ordinance and cannot have liability thereunder. Any and all claims

2

against that Golden Gate are again DISMISSED.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Golden Gate seeks an award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The statute
provides:
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the
United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in
any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to
satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably
incurred because of such conduct.
An award of fees under the statute requires a finding of subjective bad faith. Blixseth v.

10

Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2015). Bad faith “is

11

present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or argues a

12

meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.” B.K.B. v. Maui Police

13

Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002). “For sanctions to apply, if a filing is

14

submitted recklessly, it must be frivolous, while if it is not frivolous, it must be intended

15

to harass.” In re Keegan Mgmt., 78 F.3d at 436.

16

The statute sets a very high threshold before an attorney will be required to

17

reimburse the opposing party for a portion of its attorney’s fees. A high threshold is

18

appropriate given the likelihood that fee shifting could chill advocacy. The Court

19

therefore starts its analysis with the presumptions that an award of fees is not appropriate

20

and that counsels’ conduct falls within the acceptable realm of zealous advocacy,

21

untainted by bad faith. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the reassertion of defective

22

claims against Golden Gate was frivolous and improperly multiplied the proceedings for

23

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The claims against Golden Gate were dismissed because it

24

was not a “Transportation employer” subject to the ordinance. The Court expressly noted

25
26

ORDER GRANTING GOLDEN GATE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

1

that this defect could not be remedied through amendment. While there may have been

2

legitimate, non-frivolous reasons to identify Golden Gate as a defendant in the amended

3

complaint (such as preserving an issue for appeal), plaintiffs have not made that argument

4

and instead have indicated that they intend to relitigate their claims against this defendant

5

on the merits. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are hereby ORDERED to pay Golden Gate reasonable

6

fees of $1,000 within fourteen days of the date of this order.

7
8

Dated this 25th day of April, 2017.

9
10

A

11

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING GOLDEN GATE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS - 3