Harbord v. Bean et al
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ; granting in part and denying in part defendant's 8 Motion to Remand ; vacating Court's 6 Order to Show Cause ; denying as moot Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense, 22 Motion to add defendants, and 24 Second Motion to Strike, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (Ken Burnes, Daniel Hurley, Mike LaGrange, Safeway Inc, Matthew Bean and Sue Bonnett terminated.) (SWT) (cc Plaintiff via USPS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
HATSUYO HARBORD,
Plaintiff,
10
No. C17-349RSL
v.
11
12
MATTHEW BEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to remand or dismiss of defendants
Safeway, Inc., Mike Lagrange, Sue Bonnett, Ken Barnes, and Daniel P. Hurley (the “Safeway
Defendants”). Dkt. # 8. Proceeding pro se, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging various tort
causes of action arising from an earlier employment discrimination lawsuit that plaintiff filed
several years ago. Dkt. # 1. Specifically, plaintiff sues her former attorney, the opposing party’s
attorney, and various defendants from that earlier case for “fraud, mistake, conditions precedent,
official documents, special damage.” Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges discrimination by a
number of Washington State Supreme Court clerks, apparently due to their failure to print
certain documents.1
The Court, having reviewed the record as a whole under the standards articulated in 28
24
25
26
1
Plaintiff did not initially name those court clerks as defendants, but has since requested leave
to add them as defendants. See Dkt. ## 1, 22.
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
1
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and having construed the allegations of the complaint liberally, see
2
Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), found that plaintiff’s
3
complaint was deficient because it did not contain allegations sufficient to establish federal
4
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiff to file an
5
amended complaint within 28 days, remedying the jurisdictional deficiencies that the Court had
6
identified. See Dkt. # 5. To date, though plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, she has
7
filed numerous other documents elaborating on her claims against the various defendants. See
8
Dkt. ## 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30.
9
Meanwhile, the Safeway Defendants filed the motion now before the Court, categorizing
10
plaintiff’s complaint as an attempt at removal and asking the Court to remand the case to King
11
County Superior Court, or in the alternative to dismiss the case with prejudice. Dkt. # 8. Citing
12
plaintiff’s history of filing frivolous claims and appeals in Washington state courts and the
13
volume of filings in this case, the Safeway Defendants ask the Court to award attorney’s fees
14
and to enjoin plaintiff from filing any further actions against the Safeway Defendants without
15
prior approval of the Court. Dkt. # 8 at 10.
16
Though it does appear that plaintiff intended to “remove” her state case to federal district
17
court, see Dkt. # 24, as plaintiff in that case, she lacked the power to do so. See 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 1441(a) (providing that a civil action brought in a state court may be removed “by the
19
defendant or the defendants”). Plaintiff initiated a new case in federal court by filing her
20
complaint here, see Dkt. # 1, and this Court lacks the authority to remand a case that originated
21
in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Accordingly, the Court declines the Safeway
22
Defendants’ invitation to remand.
23
Instead, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s claims against the Safeway Defendants
24
should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. When filing this case
25
in federal court, plaintiff asserted federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See
26
Dkt. # 1-1. As plaintiff’s claims against the Safeway Defendants are all state-law claims, this is
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
1
the only jurisdictional ground available to her. For this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction,
2
however, the parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must
3
exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (establishing that the federal court’s basic diversity
4
jurisdiction extends to “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . .
5
and is between . . . citizens of different States”). The Safeway Defendants assert, and plaintiff
6
does not dispute, that complete diversity does not exist between plaintiff and the Safeway
7
Defendants. See Dkt. # 1-1. Neither does the Court have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims
8
against her former attorney, Matthew Bean. Id. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
9
the claims against the Safeway Defendants and Mr. Bean, and they must be dismissed with
10
11
prejudice.
Plaintiff’s claims against the Washington state supreme court clerks are dismissed without
12
prejudice. While plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts supporting a plausible Constitutional
13
claim against those individuals, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), this
14
Court would have federal question jurisdiction over those claims were they sufficiently pled.
15
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.
16
The Court declines to award the Safeway Defendants their attorney’s fees and costs.
17
Because the Court declines to treat plaintiff’s complaint as a removal, fees under 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 1447(c) are not appropriate. Neither will the Court enjoin plaintiff from filing further actions
19
against the Safeway Defendants without a showing of merit. While plaintiff’s filings in this case
20
are certainly plentiful, they do not warrant an order limiting plaintiff’s access to this federal
21
forum at this time.
22
23
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion (Dkt. # 8) is DENIED in part and
24
GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Safeway Inc., Mike Lagrange, Sue
25
Bonnett, Ken Barnes, Daniel P. Hurley, and Matthew Bean are dismissed with prejudice.
26
Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court’s order to show cause (Dkt.
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
1
# 6) is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff’s “motion to strike affirmative defense” (Dkt. # 15), motion
2
to add defendants (Dkt. # 22), and second motion to strike (Dkt. # 24) are DENIED as moot.
3
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants
4
Safeway Inc., Mike Lagrange, Sue Bonnett, Ken Barnes, Daniel P. Hurley, and Matthew Bean.
5
6
SO ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2017.
7
A
8
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
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?