Dean et al v. King County Metropolitan (Metro) Transit System
Filing
23
ORDER granting Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587's 15 Motion to Dismiss; claims against that defendant are hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587 terminated) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
_______________________________________
)
JIMMIE T. DEAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
KING COUNTY METROPOLITAN
)
(METRO) TRANSIT SYSTEM, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
Civil Case No. C16-1821RSL
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION,
LOCAL 587'S MOTION TO DISMISS
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
16
587's Motion to Dismiss.” Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from his
17
job with King County Metro and that his union, defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
18
587, gave “little or no assistance during this time other than a brush off by stating that there was
19
nothing the union could do for him to assist him with getting his job back.” Dkt. # 1-1 at 2.
20
Identical claims were filed in King County Superior Court in June 2015. Dkt. # 16 at 9. Those
21
claims were dismissed with prejudice in August 2015. Dkt. # 16 at 27.1 Local 587 seeks
22
23
24
25
26
1
In the context of a motion to dismiss, the Court’s review is generally limited to the contents of
the complaint. Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court has, however,
taken judicial notice of documents filed in the previous court case not for the truth of the facts recited
therein, but for the existence and resolution of the claims asserted. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001).
ORDER GRANTING UNION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
1
dismissal of the claims, arguing that they are barred by collateral estoppel, are not adequately
2
plead, and fail on the merits.
3
Defendant’s motion was noted for consideration on June 2, 2017. On May 30, 2017,
4
plaintiff filed a one-page response indicating that he is proceeding pro se, that motions to dismiss
5
are disfavored, and that he is working on an amended answer. Dkt. # 17. During the past three
6
weeks, plaintiff contacted chambers at least twice to reiterate that he intended to file a more
7
complete response. The stated dates for filing have come and gone, however, and no further
8
response has been submitted. More importantly, it does not appear that any amendment could
9
cure the res judicata/collateral estoppel problem identified by Local 587. Plaintiff’s claims were
10
previously asserted against the same parties and were finally resolved against plaintiff. He may
11
not pursue them here.
12
13
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587's
14
motion is GRANTED. The claims against that defendant are hereby DISMISSED without leave
15
to amend.
16
17
Dated this 30th day of June, 2017.
18
A
19
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING UNION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS - 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?