Malevannaya et al v. T-Mobile

Filing 8

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 6 Motion to Reopen Case; denying as moot Ms. Volodkov's 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. 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 DENYING MOTION TO
REOPEN

v.
T-MOBILE,

14

Defendant.

15
Before the court is Plaintiffs Yekaterina Malevannaya and Liliya Volodkov’s
16
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to reopen. (Mot. (Dkt. # 6).) On June 15, 2018,
17
Plaintiffs filed this case against Defendant T-Mobile and simultaneously moved for a
18
temporary restraining order (“TRO”).1 (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1); TRO Mot. (Dkt.
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

# 1-2).) Plaintiffs’ complaint contained no factual allegations, aside from asserting that

2

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

3

Washington. (See generally 6/18/18 Order at 5-7; Compl.; see id. at 4.) Based on those

4

allegations, the court concluded that Plaintiffs intended to allege diversity jurisdiction as

5

the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, that the court lacked subject matter

6

jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of citizenship among the parties,

7

and that Plaintiffs failed to meet the standard for issuance of a TRO. (6/18/18 Order at

8

5-7); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court thus denied the TRO motion and ordered

9

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

10
11

dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 6-7.)
Plaintiffs did not specifically respond to the court’s order (see Dkt.) but on June

12

18, 2018, filed several “exhibits” (see Exhibits (Dkt. # 3)). The court found that none of

13

those exhibits demonstrated subject matter jurisdiction. (7/3/18 Order (Dkt. # 4) at 2-3.)

14

The court therefore dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice and entered

15

judgment. (See id. at 3; Judgment (Dkt. # 5).)

16

On July 12, 2018, Plaintiffs moved to reopen the case. (See Mot.) In their motion,

17

Plaintiffs make new allegations related to their phone service and apparent removal from

18

T-Mobile’s headquarters. (See id. at 1-2.) Those allegations, however, do not change the

19

fact that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (See 6/18/18 Order; 7/3/18 Order); 28

20
21
22

information no later than Monday, July 2, 2018. (6/18/18 Order (Dkt. # 2) at 3.) Ms. Volodkov
filed her IFP application on July 13, 2018, and the court denies it as untimely and moot. (See 2d
IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 6)); see also infra.

ORDER - 2

1

U.S.C. § 1332; cf. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h) (stating that the court will

2

“ordinarily deny” a motion for reconsideration “in the absence of a showing of manifest

3

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have

4

been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence”). Thus, the

5

court DENIES the motion to reopen (Dkt. # 6) and DENIES as moot Ms. Volodkov’s

6

untimely IFP motion (Dkt. # 7).

7

Dated this 16th day of July, 2018.

8
9

A

10

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3