Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 227

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re Remand from the Ninth Circuit: the Court has attached a proposed amended injunction order and proposed amended judgment consistent with the Ninth Circuit's specific instructions. The parties are ORDERED to show cause why these should not be entered by the Court. The parties have fourteen (14) days to respond. Such response shall not exceed six (6) pages. No attachments are permitted. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Judgment)(MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SANDRA L. FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

vs.

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND
FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID MARITAL
COMMUNITY,

13
14

NO. 2:17-cv-01685-RSM

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit and in response to
its January 8, 2020, Memorandum Opinion. Dkt. #224; see also Dkt. #226 (Mandate).

16

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the majority of the Court’s prior rulings: “Ferguson fails

17

to state a § 1983 claim;” “the district court did not err in finding Ferguson’s § 1983 claim to be

18

frivolous;” “Ferguson did not file a timely opposition to Waid’s motion for sanctions before the

19

district court;” “her appeal of the orders denying summary judgment in her favor on the

20

defamation and harassment claims is foreclosed by Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011),

21

because a district court’s orders denying summary judgment are not reviewable after a trial on

22

the merits;” “the district court essentially granted partial summary judgment for Waid when it

23

‘conclude[d] as a matter of law that Ms. Ferguson made statements of fact, not opinion, when

24

she stated that Mr. Waid engaged in fraudulent and criminal activity…. [t]hat conclusion was not

25

in error.” Dkt. #224.

26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND FROM THE
NINTH CIRCUIT - 1

1

However, the Ninth Circuit has also reversed two of the Court’s prior rulings: “[b]ecause

2

a state’s Anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to federal claims for relief, we reverse the district

3

court’s finding on that claim, and strike the associated $10,000 award;” “[t]he injunction is

4

overbroad at section (a), which prohibits Ferguson generally ‘from contacting past or present

5

clients of Brian J. Waid, either in person, via telephone, or by electronic communications.’” Id.

6

The Ninth Circuit remanded with specific instructions to revise section (a) of the injunction to

7

add the underlined language: “Sandra Ferguson is enjoined from repeating the same or

8

effectively identical statements found to be defamatory in this case to past or present clients of

9

Brian J. Waid, either in person, via telephone, or by electronic communications.” Id. at 5. As to

10
11

the remaining sections of the injunction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Id.
Given all of the above, the Court has attached a proposed amended injunction order and

12

proposed amended judgment consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s specific instructions.

13

parties are ORDERED to show cause why these should not be entered by the Court. The parties

14

have fourteen (14) days to respond.

15

attachments are permitted.

16
17
18
19
20

Such response shall not exceed six (6) pages.

Dated this 3 day of March 2020.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND FROM THE
NINTH CIRCUIT - 2

The

No