City of Edmonds v. Riedlinger

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS 17 18 FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF REMAND by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

CITY OF EDMONDS,
Plaintiff,

10

No. C17-225RSL

11

v.

12

DARY GAIL RIEDLINGER,
Defendant.

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

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to Vacate Order to Remand
Case,” Dkt. # 17, and defendant’s “Motion for Relief from Order of Remand,” Dkt. # 18. The
Court DENIES these motions. Defendant asks the Court to void its order of remand, Dkt. # 11,
on the grounds that the order constitutes fraud. This contention is meritless. As the Court has
already explained, see Dkt. # 11, federal jurisdiction cannot be based on actual or anticipated
defenses, Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). Defendant’s claim that his traffic
citation violates his First Amendment rights is a defense to that citation, and so it cannot form
the basis for federal jurisdiction and removal. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211
U.S. 149, 152 (1908). And claiming that defendant’s rights were violated does not suffice to
demonstrate that the state courts are incapable of vindicating defendant’s rights such that
removal is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Remanding on these bases is not fraud, but rather
a straightforward application of the federal jurisdiction statutes. Defendant’s motions are
DENIED.

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RELIEF FROM ORDER OF
REMAND

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF - 1

1
2

DATED this 31st day of March, 2017.

3
4
5

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELIEF - 2