Chen v. Campbell et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. C17-149 RSM

JOHN CHEN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
ANDREW CAMPBELL and ANDREW
HARTSTONE, INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Dkt. #6.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of

21

process. Plaintiff has failed to file a Response.

22

considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2).

23

The Court agrees with Defendants that the United States is the only proper defendant in this

24

The failure to file a response “may be

matter, that Plaintiff’s refund suit fails to plead applicable statutory requirements, and that

25
26

Plaintiff has not fully complied with the proper service requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i).

27

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

28

lack of personal jurisdiction, and for insufficient service of process, and that dismissal is

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

1
2
3
4

warranted. Given these fundamental jurisdictional and procedural problems, the Court sees no
reason to grant leave to amend.
Having reviewed the instant Motion, all evidence submitted in support of the motion,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

to Dismiss (Dkt. #7) is GRANTED and all of plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. This case is
CLOSED.
DATED this 25th day of May 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2