Matheson et al v. Smith et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 36 Motion to file Amended Complaint; denying 46 Motion to Remand, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

JESSICA MAE MATHESON, dba
JESS'S WHOLESALE,

CASE NO. C11-5946RBL
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
LEE SMITH and DOYLE McMINN, et
al,

13
Defendant.
14
15

This is an Order DENYING Motion for Remand to District Court to allow the District

16 Court to rule on Plaintiff/Appellant’s Motion to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint
17 [Dkt. #46] and Motion to File First Amended and Supplemental Complaint [Dkt. #36].
18

On May 17, 2012, this Court entered an Order dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims, and on

19 May 22, 2012, this Court entered a Judgment reflecting the dismissal. [Dkt. #’s 33 and 34]. On
20 June 5, 2012, after the Judgment had been entered, Ms. Matheson filed a Motion to File an
21 Amended and Supplemental Complaint, along with a copy of her First Amended and
22 Supplemental Complaint. On June 8, 2012, Ms. Matheson filed a Notice of Appeal. She then
23
24

ORDER - 1

1 filed a Motion to Remand, but she filed it in this Court, apparently asking this Court to exercise
2 jurisdiction and rule on the motion to file the amended and supplemental complaint.
3

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that after a judgment has been entered, a motion to

4 amend the complaint pursuant to Civil Rule 15(a) may be considered only after the judgment is
5 reopened under Civil Rule 59 or 60. Lindauer v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1996).
6 The Lindauer Court explained that this holding was consistent with the principle promoting
7 finality of judgments, id. at 1357. Ms. Matheson has not sought to reopen the judgment pursuant
8 to Civil Rule 59 or 60, and therefore this Court cannot allow her to amend her complaint. See,
9 Benson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 673 F.3d 1207, 1218 (2012) (holding, where the district
10 court had dismissed under CR 12(b)(1) and a judgment had been entered, the plaintiffs could
11 seek to amend their complaint only after filing a CR 60 motion.).
12

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

13

Dated this 17th day of July, 2012.

15

A

16

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2