Jennings(s) v. Duke Partners II, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER imposing sanctions for failure to comply with LCR 10(e)(9), signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

SUZANNE JENNINGS

8
9
10

Plaintiff,

Cause No. C17-0969RSL

v.
DUKE PARTNERS II, LLC, et al.,

11

Defendants.
12

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
LCR 10(e)(9)

13
14
15

This matter came before the Court sua sponte. On July 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion

16

which, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages in length (Dkt. # 10) but did not provide a courtesy

17

copy for the Court’s review as required by LCR 10(e)(9). The Court issued an order requiring

18

immediate delivery of a paper copy of the motion and all supporting documents and an

19

explanation for the failure to comply with the local rules. Dkt. # 13. Plaintiff has failed to

20

provide the courtesy copy: her response suggests that she has no intention of complying with the

21

local rules of this district because she believes the Court has no authority to hear this matter and

22
23

disputes the validity of the order to show cause.
On June 27, 2017, three of the named defendants removed this case to federal court on the

24

ground that plaintiff had inserted a federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim into her
25
26

complaint for unlawful detainer. A review of the complaint confirms that plaintiff’s claim is, at
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LCR 10(e)(9)

1

least in part, based on an allegation that defendant Wells Fargo violated TILA. Dkt. # 1-1 at 6-7.

2

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for remand which is not yet fully briefed. In the context of that

3
4
5

motion, plaintiff argues that the “Prior Jurisdiction Doctrine” prevents a federal court from
assuming jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer or quiet title action (Dkt. # 10 at 2) but
acknowledges that the complaint asserts limited federal issues over which the Court could

6

properly exercise jurisdiction. Dkt. # 10 at 4. At present, therefore, this matter is properly
7
8
9
10

pending in this jurisdiction and -- unless and until the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for remand
-- the case is governed by the local rules of this district.
The courtesy copy requirement of LCR 10(e)(9) applies to all litigants whose submissions

11

exceed fifty pages in length. Having declined to provide a courtesy copy as required, the Court

12

will read only the first fifty pages of plaintiff’s 1,380 page motion for remand and supporting

13

documents. Future failures to provide courtesy copies in a timely manner will similarly curtail

14

the Court’s review of plaintiff’s submissions to the first fifty pages.

15
16
17

DATED this 17th day of August, 2017.

18

A

19

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LCR 10(e)(9)

-2-