United States of America v. Chau et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

CASE NO. C17-5526 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS

STEPHEN C. MASON, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Kien Chau and Hansan Carpet

14

& Blind’s (“Defendants”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 26). The Court has

15

considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the

16

remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

17

I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18

In January 2013, the HELENA STAR sank and discharged oil into the navigable

19

waters of the United States. Dkt. 1, ¶ 77. The Government alleges that Defendants and

20

others in relation to Defendants owned and/or maintained control over the HELENA

21

STAR. Id. ¶¶ 6–76. The Government alleges that Defendants and others failed to

22

respond to the threat of oil discharge forcing the Government to respond. Id. ¶¶ 80–83.

ORDER - 1

1

The Government incurred over $600,000 in costs for the removal of the HELENA STAR

2

and cleanup of the oil discharge. Id. ¶ 86.

3

On July 11, 2017, the Government filed a complaint against Defendants and others

4

asserting three claims for violations of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C.

5

§ 2701, et seq., a claim for a violation of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act

6

(“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3001, et seq., and a claim for priority of its claims. Id.

7

On April 3, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt.

8

26. On April 23, 2018, the Government responded. Dkt. 29. On April 27, 2018,

9

Defendants replied. Dkt. 30.

10
11
12

II. DISCUSSION
A.

Standard
“After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may

13

move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The pleadings are closed

14

for purposes of Rule 12(c) once a complaint and answer have been filed. Doe v. United

15

States, 419 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2005). “Analysis under Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially

16

identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, a court must

17

determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to

18

a legal remedy.” Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 793 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir.

19

2015) (quoting Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012)).

20

Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

21

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

22

sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department,

ORDER - 2

1

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the

2

complaint is construed in the plaintiff’s favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1301

3

(9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint does not require detailed

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.

8

B.

Timing
The Government argues that Defendants’ motion is premature. Dkt. 9 at 3–4. The

9
10

issue is whether the pleadings are closed when some defendants have not answered but

11

are in default. Neither party cites authority directly on point. In the absence of authority,

12

it would seem that the pleadings are closed when the time period for filing an answer has

13

passed and the opposing party has moved for default. Otherwise, the pleadings would

14

never be closed when at least one party has defaulted. The Court also agrees with

15

Defendants that, even if the pleadings are not closed, the Court may address the merits of

16

the motion because a Rule 12(c) motion is substantially identical to a Rule 12(b)(6)

17

motion. Dkt. 30 at 4 n.3.

18

C.

19

Merits
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Government’s complaint

20

because it fails to support the claims with sufficient factual allegations. Dkt. 26. First,

21

Defendants claim that the Government’s allegation that the HELENA STAR is a “vessel”

22

under the OPA is a formulaic recitation of the elements of an OPA claim. Id. at 6–10.

ORDER - 3

1

The Court disagrees. Alleging that the HELENA STAR is a vessel is sufficient to put

2

Defendants on notice of the claim against them. Moreover, this issue is more suitable for

3

resolution on a motion for summary judgment when the parties may submit facts in

4

support of their respective positions. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion on

5

this issue.

6

Second, Defendants argue that the Government has failed to sufficiently plead a

7

claim for violation of the FDCPA. Dkt. 26 at 11. Defendants assert that the Government

8

failed to allege that Defendants have moved any assets to violate the statute or that the

9

Government is entitled to any monetary relief from Defendants for a violation of OPA.

10

Id.; Dkt. 30 at 8–9. The Court denies the latter issue because the Government has

11

sufficiently stated an OPA claim. Regarding the former, the Court finds no need to list

12

the actual improper transactions in the complaint. Defendants may easily discover the

13

challenged transaction supporting the Government’s claim with a simple discovery

14

request. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion on this issue.

15

Third, Defendants argue that the Government fails to indicate why its alleged debt

16

has priority over other debts. Dkt. 26 at 11–12. The Court finds that the Government has

17

provided sufficient notice of its claim. To the extent Defendants seek clarity on which

18

enumerated circumstance in the applicable statute supports the Government’s claim,

19

Defendants may request this information in discovery. Therefore, the Court denies

20

Defendants’ motion on this issue as well.

21
22

ORDER - 4

1
2
3
4

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Dkt. 26) is DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2018.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5