Enger v. Garagan

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 GRETCHEN ENGER, Case No. 2:19-cv-01171-RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 10 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 11 SVETLANA GARAGAN, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Svetlana Garagan and Nikolay 16 Garagan’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #15. On September 10, 2019, this Court granted 17 Plaintiff Gretchen Enger’s Motion to Remand. Dkt. #12. Defendants now request that the Court 18 reconsider its order based on the counterclaim they attached to their Notice of Removal. Id; Dkt. 19 #1, Ex 5. Defendants also argue that their untimely opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion should be 20 considered given they are pro se and should be held to less stringent standards than lawyers. Id. 21 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. 22 23

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 In its previous order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand based on lack of 3 subject matter jurisdiction. First, the Court determined that no federal question jurisdiction exists 4 in this matter. Dkt. #12 at 3. Plaintiff’s sole cause of action is a state law action for unlawful

5 detainer, not a federal question, and a counterclaim cannot confer the federal question jurisdiction. 6 Id. Second, the Court determined that no diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter. Id. A case 7 may not be removed to federal court based on diversity if any defendant “is a citizen of the State 8 in which such action is brought,” and both Mr. and Ms. Garagan are residents of Washington 9 state. Id.; see also 28. U.S.C. § 1441 (b)(2). 10 Defendants now request reconsideration of the Order to Remand based on their 11 counterclaim, the national interest exception, and their pro se status. Dkt. #15. 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Legal Standard

14 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). 15 “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the 16 prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its 17 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 18 B. Lack of Manifest Error 19 Defendants’ Motion does not demonstrate manifest error by the Court in its prior ruling, 20 provide new evidence, or identify a change in the controlling law. Defendants reiterate their 21 argument that federal question jurisdiction exists based on their counterclaim. Dkt. #15 at 1. 22 Defendants also argue that jurisdiction may exist without a federal cause of action so long as an 23

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 important national interest would be served. Id. at 2. Here, Defendants argue that show cause 2 hearings at the state level “deprive[] individuals and families of a roof over their head.” Id. 3 Defendants cite to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc., v. Darue Engineering, which held that 4 providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation was deemed to be an important national

5 interest. Id.; 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2364 (2005). This is not a federal tax case, and the Court is not 6 persuaded that the Plaintiff’s state law action for unlawful detainer circumvents due process. The 7 Court finds that providing a federal forum for the current matter would not serve an important 8 national interest. 9 C. Defendants’ Pro Se Status 10 While the Court agrees that pro se parties are held to less stringent standards, these 11 standards typically address the substance of a complaint or allegation—not procedural issues such 12 as filing deadlines. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972) (Holding that allegations 13 of the pro se complaint are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers).

14 Here, the Court declined to consider Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion based on its 15 untimely filing by six days. 16 Moreover, even if the Court had considered Defendants’ opposition, it still provides no 17 basis for federal jurisdiction. The opposition merely reiterates Defendants’ arguments regarding 18 federal question jurisdiction and the exception for cases with “important national interest,” which 19 the Court has already addressed. See Dkt. #10 at 2-3. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 22 23

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 Having reviewed the relevant briefing, attached declarations, and the remainder of the 2 record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 3 #15) is DENIED. 4 DATED this 30 day of September 2019.

5 A 6 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION