Malevannaya et al v. T-Mobile

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: plaintiffs via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

YEKATERINA MALEVANNAYA,
et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13

CASE NO. C18-0886JLR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
T-MOBILE,

14

Defendant.

15
16

On June 15, 2018, Plaintiffs Yekaterina Malevannaya and Liliya Volodkov

17

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this case against Defendant T-Mobile and simultaneously

18

moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).1 (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1); TRO Mot.

19
20
21
22

1

Along with their complaint and motion for a TRO, Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) The IFP motion contained information
related only to Ms. Malevannaya and was signed only by her. (See id.) Ms. Volodkov neither
signed the IFP motion nor paid the required filing fee. (See Dkt.) The court thus ordered Ms.
Volodkov to correct the deficiency by filing a signed IFP application containing her financial

ORDER - 1

1

(Dkt. # 1-2).) The court found that Plaintiffs’ complaint contained no factual allegations,

2

aside from listing Ms. Malevannaya’s domicile and the principal place of business for

3

T-Mobile.2 (See generally 6/18/18 Order at 5-7; Compl.; see id. at 4.) Both Ms.

4

Malevannaya’s domicile and T-Mobile’s principal place of business are in Washington.

5

(Id. at 4.) Based on those allegations, the court concluded that Plaintiffs intended to

6

allege diversity jurisdiction as the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, that the

7

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of

8

citizenship among the parties, and that Plaintiffs failed to meet the standard for issuance

9

of a TRO. (6/18/18 Order at 5-7.) The court thus denied the TRO motion and ordered

10

Plaintiffs to show cause no later than Monday, July 2, 2018, why the court should not

11

dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 6-7.)

12

Plaintiffs have not specifically responded to the court’s order (see Dkt.), but on

13

June 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed several “exhibits” (see Exhibits (Dkt. # 3)). None of the

14

exhibits—all of which are related to a person named Vyacheslav Aleksyuk—

15

demonstrates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The first exhibit is Mr. Aleksyuk’s

16
17

information no later than Monday, July 2, 2018. (6/18/18 Order (Dkt. # 2) at 3.) Ms. Volodkov
has not done so. (See Dkt.)

18
In their motion for a TRO, Plaintiffs stated that Ms. Malevannaya is the “account holder
of [an] Integrity Business account of T-Mobile,” and that they have experienced “unfair
treatment of [the] executive response team . . . , harrasing [sic] behavior, unproffesional [sic]
vulgar language, fraudulant [sic] transactions, and unreasonable termination of [their] account
without explanation.” (TRO Mot. at 1-2.) They further stated that a T-Mobile representative
told them they “have untill [sic] Monday to transfer [their] lines,” and that they are not allowed
in any T-Mobile retail stores or to obtain service from T-Mobile or “its affiliates” in the future.
(Id. at 2.) Based on the foregoing events, Plaintiffs sought a TRO to “stop termination of
service,” which was set to occur on June 18, 2018. (Id. at 1.)
2

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2

1

declaration in which he attests that he authorized only one payment of $397.00 on

2

January 6, 2018, and that T-Mobile “hacked [his] account without authorization.” (Ex. 1

3

(Dkt. # 3-1) at 1.) The second and third exhibits appear to be telephone bills for Mr.

4

Aleksyuk from December 15, 2017, through January 14, 2018, and March 15, 2018,

5

through April 14, 2018. (Ex. 2 (Dkt. # 3-2) at 1; Ex. 3 (Dkt. # 3-3) at 1.) Even if it were

6

clear who Mr. Aleksyuk is and what role he plays in this litigation, his declaration and

7

phone bills fail to demonstrate any basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction. (See id.)

8

Plaintiffs have not otherwise responded to the court’s June 18, 2018, order. (See Dkt.)

9

Accordingly, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and DISMISSES

10

Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.

11

Dated this 3rd day of July, 2018.

12
13

A

14

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3