Atkinson v. Langworthy

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 PATRICIA ATKINSON, CASE NO. C20-95 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND 12 Ve 13 GENEVA LANGWORTHY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Remand (Dkt. 17 || No. 6.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff's State Court Petition for an Order of Protection 18 No. 1, Ex. 2), Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 5), and the remaining record, the 19 Court REMANDS this action to Whatcom County District Court. 20 On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff sought a protective order from the Whatcom County 21 || District Court, alleging that Defendant was harassing her by “protesting” outside her home 22 || because of Plaintiff's role as a volunteer treasurer for the Alternative Humane Society in 23 || Bellingham, Washington. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 2 at 3.) Plaintiff obtained a temporary protective 24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND - 1

1 || order on December 23, 2019 that was reissued on January 8, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 3, 6.) On January 2 || 20, 2020, Defendant removed to this Court, citing no basis for federal jurisdiction. a While Defendant asserts that “an issue of federal law is the central and essential element 4 || of the petitioner’s case” and that she intends “to counter-sue for denial of free speech and free 5 || expression,” these assertions do not establish federal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) “The 6 || presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ 7 ||rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 8 || the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 9 |} 1005, 1014 (9th Cir.2000). A case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense, even if 10 || that defense is the only question truly at issue. Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 11 (1987). Nor may removal be based on a counterclaim. The Holmes Group, Inc., v. Vornado Air 12 || Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 832 (2002). Because Plaintiffs Petition for an Order of 13 || Protection (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 2) contains no federal claims, this Court has no jurisdiction and 14 ||] REMANDS this matter to Whatcom County District Court. 15 16 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to both parties. 17 Dated January 22, 2020.

19 Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge

2] 22 23 24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND - 2