Hart et al v. Weyrich et al
Filing
35
ORDER denying 32 MOTION for Reconsideration and 34 Motion for Criminal Referral. The Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion for Criminal Referral. This matter shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (KRA) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
CODY HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. C23-884 MJP
v.
RICHARD WEYRICH, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION FOR CRIMINAL
REFERRAL
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.
17
32) and Motion for Criminal Referral (Dkt. No. 34). Having reviewed both Motions and
18
supporting materials, the Court DENIES both Motions.
19
The Court previously issued an Order dismissing this action with prejudice and without
20
leave to amend. (Order of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 30).) In particular, the Court found that it lacked
21
subject matter jurisdiction over the action because Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claims
22
they alleged. (Id. at 3-4.) The Court explained:
23
24
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual “cases” and
“controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “One element of the case-or-controversy
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 1
1
requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Clapper v.
Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
To establish standing “a plaintiff must show (1) [they have] suffered an injury in fact that
is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant
and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l. Serv. Inc., 528 U.S. 167,
180-81 (2000). “The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden
of establishing these elements.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). “[A]t
the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Id.
(internal quotation and citation omitted). And “a plaintiff cannot establish standing by
asserting an abstract general interest common to all members of the public, no matter
how sincere or deeply committed a plaintiff is to vindicating that general interest on
behalf of the public.” Carney v. Adams, ___ U.S. ___, 208 L. Ed. 2d 305, 141 S. Ct. 493,
499 (2020) (citation and quotation omitted).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to identify any concrete or particularized injury sufficient to
confer standing as required under Article III. First, none of the Plaintiffs has identified
any individual injury arising out of the alleged failure of Perkins, McDermott and
Weyrich to timely deposit their public bonds. Plaintiffs fail to identify any concrete,
personal injury from these alleged untimely acts or an injury that could be redressed from
the relief sought. At most, Plaintiffs have identified an injury to a public interest that is
common to all members of the public. This is not a basis to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement of standing. See Carney, 141 S. Ct. at 499. Second, Plaintiffs lack standing
to enforce the federal criminal statutes they have identified. See Allen v. Gold Country
Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action for violation of
criminal statutes); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (noting that “a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution
of another”). Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
lack standing to pursue all of their claims.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Id.)
Plaintiffs’ newly-identified evidence does not alter the fact that Plaintiffs continue not to
have standing to pursue any of the claims alleged in this matter. Plaintiffs have not identified any
personal injury sufficient to meet Article III’s standing requirements. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion for Criminal Referral. This
matter shall remain closed.
\\
\\
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 2
1
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiffs and all counsel.
2
Dated June 4, 2024.
3
A
4
Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CRIMINAL REFERRAL - 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?