Greek et al v. Pierce County et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 15 Defendants Hamilton, Fynboe and Kolp's Motion to Dismiss; this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file in state court. 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

MEL and ALICE GREEK, husband and wife

CASE NO. C13-5558 RBL

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER

10
v.
11

(Dkt. #15)

13

PIERCE COUNTY, KARIE HAMILTON,
CHRISTIAN FYNBOE, JOSEPH KOLP, and
NATHALY KOLP, and their respective marital
communities,

14

and

15

REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THAT
PORTION OF CERTAIN “WALK”, 10 FEET
IN WIDTH, LYING BETWEEN A PART OF
BLOCK “A” ON THE WEST AND A PART OF
BLOCKS 1 AND 2 ON THE EAST IN
SECOND WILDARE ADDITION, PIERCE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AS THE SAME IS
RECORDED ON PAGE 44 OF VOLUME 11
OF PLATS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
PIERCE COUNTY AUDITOR, ETC.,

12

16
17
18
19
20
21

Defendant.

22
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
23
under to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #15). Defendants Hamilton, Fynboe, and Kolp seek to
24

ORDER - 1

1 dismiss the present action, arguing that the statute of limitations on the quiet title and ejectment
2 claims against them has long since expired. Alternatively, they ask the Court decline to exercise
3 supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against them if it grants Defendant Pierce
4 County’s motion to dismiss the only federal claim in the case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the
5 Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over
6 which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
7

In a separate Order, the County’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. There are no longer

8 any claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, and the remaining state law claims can
9 and should be resolved at the state court level. The Court therefore DECLINES to exercise
10 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The Court does not reach the
11 statute of limitations issues. The individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and
12 the case is DISMISSED without prejudice, with leave to file in state court.
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated this 16th day of September, 2013.

16

A

17

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2