Dixon v. Goguen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 RYAN A. DIXON, Case No. C24-660-RSM

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 v.

11 JIE L. GOGUEN, et al.,

12 Defendants.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jie Goguen’s Motion to Dismiss and 15 Notice of Related Cases, Dkt. #9. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike said Motion, Dkt. #11, as 16 well as a Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. #12, and a Motion for Discovery, Dkt. #13. For the reasons 17 below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 18 Plaintiff has previously filed similar Complaints to the one at issue before this Court. On 19 February 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant’s husband, Matthew S. Goguen, 20 for violations of RCW 4.28.185(4). Case No. 2:22-cv-01785-JHC, Dkt. #27. U.S. District Judge 21 John H. Chun dismissed that case because RCW 4.28.185(4) is a “Washington statute 22 concern[ing] persons service out of state and does not provide a cause of action.” Dkt. #35. On 23 March 9, 2023, Plaintiff again filed a similar Complaint against Mr. Goguen, alleging similar 24 1 violations of RCW 4.28.185(4), except that time Plaintiff “attempted to recast his claim as one sounding in negligence, basing the duty element on the same statute.” Case No. 2:23-cv-00357- 2 JHC, Dkt. #14 at 1. Judge Chun against dismissed Plaintiff’s case, this time with prejudice. Id. 3 Here, Plaintiff has filed named his former wife, Jie Goguen, and minor child as 4 defendants. Plaintiff seeks “compensatory damages in the amount of $20,000,000 from 5 Defendant Jie Liang Goguen . . . for causing intentional emotional distress and negligently 6 mishandling procedures that directly led to the improper services of process and the wrongful 7 deprivation of Plaintiff’s parental rights.” Dkt. #1 at 1. Like Judge Chun’s cases, Defendant has 8 moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but given the substance of Defendant’s Motion, the 9 Court construes it as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 10 In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as 11 true and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v. 12 Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). 13 However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual 14 allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 15 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 16 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met 17 when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 18 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include 19 detailed allegations, but it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 20 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent 21 facial plausibility, a plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Id. at 570. 22 Where a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, “leave to amend should be 23 granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the 24 1 challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 As in Plaintiff’s prior case before Judge Chun, Plaintiff again attempts to base the duty 3 element of a negligence claim on RCW 4.28.185(4) and makes no further allegations beyond 4 listing that Defendant “caus[ed] intentional emotional distress.” Dkt. #1. As before, Plaintiff 5 cites no legal authority to support basing violations of RCW 4.28.185(4) in a negligence claim, 6 and, as Judge Chun pointed out, it is not “apparent how the statute could give rise to a duty owed 7 by a plaintiff to a defendant that could serve as the basis for a negligence claim.” Case No. 2:23- 8 cv-00357-JHC, Dkt. #14 at 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike this instant Motion does not attempt 9 to address these deficiencies but instead demands sanctions against Defendant for including the 10 minor child’s full name and for “[t]he inclusion of profane language[.]” These alleged sanction- 11 worthy terms come from Defendant’s exhibits of related cases in her Motion to Dismiss, which 12 are all quotes from court orders from King County Superior Court. Dkt. #9. 13 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any cognizable legal 14 theory. Furthermore, dismissal with prejudice is warranted here because, after several attempts 15 with this theory before two judges of this Court, it is clear to the Court that Plaintiff’s Complaint 16 cannot be cured of these deficiencies. See Schreiber Distrib. Co., 806 F.2d at 1401. 17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #9, 18 and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. All pending motions are terminated as moot. 19

20 DATED this 9th day of July, 2024. 21 22 A 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24