Culp et al v. South Sound Bank of Olympia Washington et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss Party; and granting 14 Motion to Dismiss.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiffs)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

RODNEY VERNON CULP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C11-5865BHS

v.
SOUTH SOUND BANK OF OLYMPIA
WASHINGTON, et al.,

12

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Attorney General of Washington

15

Rob McKenna’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12), Defendant Thurston County Superior Court

16

Judge Lisa L. Sutton’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13), and Defendants Wyndie Dwyer,

17

Chuck Hoeschen, Matthew Kernutt, Owens Davies Fristoe Taylor & Schultz PS, Richard

18
19
20

G. Phillips, South Sound Bank of Olympia Washington, and Dan Yarrington’s (“Private
Defendants”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14). The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in
support of the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motions for the

21

reasons stated herein.
22

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23
24
25

On October 19, 2011, Plaintiffs Rodney Vernon Culp, George Leon Vasquez, and
JoAnn Vasquez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Attorney General McKenna,

26

Judge Sutton, and the Private Defendants. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs assert causes of actions for

27

violations of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C) – Crimes and Criminal

28
ORDER - 1

1

Procedure, the Patriot Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

2

the Hobbs Act (prohibiting crimes affecting interstate commerce), the Uniform

3

Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 3 (negotiable instruments), Title 26 of the U.S.C. –

4

Internal Revenue Code, and various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Id.

5
6
7
8

On November 8, 2011, Attorney General McKenna filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt.
12. On November 9, 2011, Judge Sutton filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 13. On
November 10, 2011, the Private Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 14. Plaintiffs
failed to respond.

9

II. DISCUSSION
10
11
12
13
14
15

As a threshold matter, the Court may consider failure to respond to a motion as an
admission that the motion has merit. Local Rule 7(b)(2). Plaintiffs did not respond to the
motions to dismiss. Therefore, the Court considers Plaintiffs’ failure as an admission that
motions have merit.
Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

17

sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

18

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the complaint is

19

construed in the plaintiffs’ favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir.

20

1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed factual

21

allegations but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and not merely a

22

“formulaic recitation” of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

23

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a

24
25
26

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
In this case, all Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to assert a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The Court agrees. Although Plaintiffs cite numerous

27

provisions of federal law, they fail to state a cognizable legal theory against any
28
ORDER - 2

1

defendant under any of these provisions. For example, Plaintiffs cite the Patriot Act and

2

allege that the numerous criminal acts committed by defendants have economically

3

harmed this country. Plaintiffs fail to allege any private right of action under the Patriot

4

Act even if Plaintiffs other allegations could be taken as true for the purposes of the

5

motions to dismiss. Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the motions and have

6

failed to request leave to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies cited by

7

Defendants.

8
9

Therefore, the Court grants the motions to dismiss because Plaintiffs have failed to
assert any claim upon which relief may be granted.

10
11

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Attorney General McKenna’s motion to

12

dismiss (Dkt. 12), Judge Sutton’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13), and the Private
13

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is
14
15
16

DISMISSED and the Clerk is directed to close this case.

A

DATED this 13th day of December, 2011.

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3