Lindsay v. Key Bank National Association et al
Filing
11
ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANTS; Defendants' Show Cause Response and plaintiff's clarification due by 5/19/2017, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) cc plaintiff
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
MATTHEW JAMES LINDSAY, ESQ.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
v.
KEY BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. C17-0354 RSM
ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
DEFENDANTS
The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 13, 2017. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, and it appears that all but one of the named Defendants have appeared.
16
Dkts. #6, #7 and #10.
17
18
On March 30, 2017, this Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should
19
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #8. The Court noted that
20
Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise out of the appointment of a non-familial personal
21
representative in a Pierce County probate action. See Dkt. #5. Plaintiff alleges that a personal
22
23
representative was appointed for his grandfather’s Estate, without notice to his mother, his
24
brother, or himself, all of whom he alleges are the rightful heirs of the estate. Id. He further
25
alleges that the personal representative took advantage of the fact that his mother suffers from
26
brain damage, and coerced her into signing paperwork that ultimately resulted in negative
27
financial consequences.
28
ORDER
PAGE - 1
Id.
He alleges numerous violations of the Revised Code of
1
Washington, as well as of Washington State court rules and the Washington State Rules of
2
Professional Conduct. He appears to seek an Order allowing him to intervene in the state court
3
probate proceedings where he wants to vacate several court orders in that matter and to petition
4
for a new personal representative. Id.
5
Plaintiff has since responded to the Court’s Show Cause Order. Dkt. #9. With respect
6
7
to jurisdiction, Plaintiff makes several arguments. First, he states:
The plaintiff notes the court may have to sever one, or more of the
defendants for jurisdictional purposes.
8
9
The plaintiff requests that the defendant, Arlen Bobb and Attorneys for the
Personal Representative, Turnbull and Born, P.L.L.C. be severed from this
lawsuit to satisfy “Complete Diversity” requirements.
10
11
12
13
Dkt. #9 at 2-3.
With respect to probate matters, Plaintiff points to the U.S. Supreme Court case of
14
Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 126 S. Ct. 1735 (2006), wherein the Court defined the
15
16
scope of the probate exception to jurisdiction. Dkt. #9 at 6. He appears to assert that his claims
17
are also outside of the Court’s probate exception, and therefore jurisdiction in this Court is
18
appropriate. Id.
19
Having reviewed the response filed by Plaintiff, and the majority of Defendants having
20
21
now appeared in this action, the Court hereby ORDERS:
22
1. Plaintiff shall clarify no later than May 19, 2017, whether he seeks to voluntarily
23
dismiss Arlen Bobb and Attorneys for the Personal Representative, Turnbull and
24
Born, P.L.L.C., as Defendants to this action. If the answer is in the affirmative, he
25
may accomplish such dismissal by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with this
26
Court.
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
2. Defendants SHALL SHOW CAUSE no later than May 19, 2017, why this matter
2
should not proceed in this Court.
3
DATED this 28th day of April 2017.
4
5
A
6
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
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?