Mann et al v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc. et al
Filing
13
ORDER granting 9 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss this matter with prejudice and without leave to amend; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/23/2018 (DN). (cc to pltfs)
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
9
THOMAS MANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
v.
CASE NO. C18-5391 RBL
ORDER
JRK PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant JRK’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs
Mann and Williams leased an apartment from JRK and vacated before the lease expired,
because, they claimed, the apartment was uninhabitable. In 2016, they sued in Pierce County and
prevailed. JRK satisfied the $5029 District Court (final) judgment. Almost two years later, Mann
and Williams sued in Pierce County again, asserting additional claims arising out of their
tenancy, and seeking additional damages. JRK timely and properly removed the case here. It
seeks dismissal on res judicata grounds, arguing that plaintiffs could (and should) have asserted
their claims in the prior case—all of the claims arise out of the lease and the tenancy, and the
parties are the same.
23
24
ORDER - 1
Mann and Williams have not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has long
1
2
passed.
Under res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or
3
4
their privies from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.” Allen v.
5
McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from re-filing a case
6
where three elements are met: (1) identity of claims; (2) final judgment on the merits; and (3)
7
identity or privity between parties. Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 850, n. 4 (9th
8
Cir. 2000); Thompson v. King Co., 163 Wash. App. 184 (2011).
Under Local Rule 7(b)(2), a party’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss can be
9
10
deemed by the court an admission that the motion has merit:
11
(2) Obligation of Opponent. Each party opposing the motion shall, within the time
prescribed in LCR 7(d), file with the clerk, and serve on each party that has appeared
in the action, a brief in opposition to the motion, together with any supporting
material of the type described in subsection (1). Except for motions for summary
judgment, if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be
considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.
12
13
14
15
16
17
The Motions do have merit, and the Plaintiffs’ failure to respond in any fashion to them is an
admission of the same. For that reason, and for the reasons outlined in the Motion itself, the motion
is GRANTED and all of claims Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave
to amend.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated this 23rd day of July, 2018.
20
21
A
22
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
23
24
ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?