A.S. v. University of Puget Sound et al

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion to Dismiss. Counter-claimant S.W. is granted leave to file amended counterclaims by March 2, 2018. (TG)

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

6
7
8

A.S.,

CASE NO. C17-5985 BHS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF PUGET
SOUND and S.W.,

11
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
GRANTING COUNTERCLAIMANT LEAVE TO AMEND

12
13

S.W.,
Counter-Claimant and
Cross-Claimant,

14
15
16

v.
A.S. and THE UNIVERSITY OF
PUGET SOUND,

17

Counter-Defendant and
Cross-Defendant.

18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant A.S.’s

20

motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of

21

and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby rules as follows:

22

ORDER - 1

1
2

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2017, A.S. filed a complaint against Defendants the University of

3

Puget Sound (“UPS”) and S.W. asserting four claims as follows: (1) assault/battery

4

against S.W.; (2) false imprisonment against S.W.; (3) a violation of the Washington Law

5

Against Discrimination against USP; and (4) a violation of Title IX against UPS. Dkt. 2

6

at 5–17.

7

On December 21, 2017, S.W. answered the complaint and filed counterclaims

8

against A.S. and crossclaims against UPS. Dkt. 13. S.W.’s two counterclaims are as

9

follows:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

1. (Tortious Interference of Business Relationship): By and
through Plaintiff’s actions, Plaintiff caused defendant S.W. economic harm
by tortuously interfering in any past, present, or future, business
relationship that defendant S.W. had or has with multiple entities, including
but not limited to: UPS, his fraternity, his athletic team, his work with
children in poverty-stricken communities, his past, current and future
employers and/or potential employers, and his past, current and future
academic institutions and/or potential academic institutions.
2. (Attorney Fees) By and through her actions, Plaintiff has caused
defendant S.W. to incur reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs in
defending himself in the UPS proceedings, and in this matter.
Id. at 22.
On January 10, 2018, A.S. moved to dismiss S.W.’s counterclaims. Dkt. 21. On
January 29, 2018, S.W. responded. Dkt. 23. On February 2, 2018, A.S. replied. Dkt. 25.
II.

19
20

DISCUSSION

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

In this case, A.S. moves to dismiss S.W.’s counterclaims based on the absence of

9

sufficient factual allegations to support the claims. Dkt. 21. The Court agrees with A.S.

10

Although S.W.’s answer provides numerous factual allegations detailing the encounter

11

between A.S. and S.W., UPS’s disciplinary proceedings, and the results of those

12

proceedings, S.W. fails to provide any factual allegations supporting the alleged business

13

relationships, A.S.’s knowledge of all such relationships, or the causation element of the

14

asserted tort. Therefore, the Court grants A.S.’s motion.

15

In the event a court finds that dismissal is warranted, the court should grant the

16

party leave to amend unless amendment would be futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v.

17

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). S.W. requests leave to amend to

18

correct the deficiencies in his claims. Dkt. 23 at 17–18. A.S. opposes this request in

19

conclusory fashion without support. Dkt. 25 at 5. Based on the record, the Court is

20

unable to conclude that any amendment would be futile and grants S.W. leave to amend.

21
22

ORDER - 3

1

III.

ORDER

2

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that A.S.’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21) is

3

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and S.W. is GRANTED leave to amend.

4

S.W. shall file amended counterclaims no later than March 2, 2018.

5

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2018.

A

6
7

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 4