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

Download PDF
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?