Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino

W.D. Washington

Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino

DecidedDecember 22, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02046

StatusUnknown

This text of Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino (Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 GURDEEP BOPARAI, CASE NO. C24-2046-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN CASINO, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 (Dkt. No. 17) and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 19). 17 According to Plaintiff’s complaint,1 he visited Defendant’s premises in December 2024. 18 (See generally Dkt. No. 20 at 9–11.) While there, he was treated rudely and disrespectfully. (See 19 generally id.) This is unfortunate but does not, in and of itself, support a claim arising under 20 federal law. See, e.g., Botosan v. Fitzhugh, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1050 (S.D. Cal. 1998) 21 (assessing Title VII and ADA claims brought by restaurant patron). And without this, the Court 22 lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor would this deficiency seem curable 23 through further amendment by Plaintiff or even a new complaint drafted by appointed counsel. 24 1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 20) comporting with Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, it is the operative complaint and the Court applies Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 17) to it, rather than to the complaint on file at the time Defendant so moved 26 (Dkt. No. 5). 1 See Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018); Wilborn v. 2 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, neither leave to again amend or the 3 appointment of counsel is warranted. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED and 5 Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED in part 6 (because Plaintiff does not plead a federal question, warranting immediate dismissal, see Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the Court lacks the jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s sovereign immunity 8 argument). Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 20) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 DATED this 22nd day of December 2025. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 GURDEEP BOPARAI, CASE NO. C24-2046-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN CASINO, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 (Dkt. No. 17) and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 19). 17 According to Plaintiff’s complaint,1 he visited Defendant’s premises in December 2024. 18 (See generally Dkt. No. 20 at 9–11.) While there, he was treated rudely and disrespectfully. (See 19 generally id.) This is unfortunate but does not, in and of itself, support a claim arising under 20 federal law. See, e.g., Botosan v. Fitzhugh, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1050 (S.D. Cal. 1998) 21 (assessing Title VII and ADA claims brought by restaurant patron). And without this, the Court 22 lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor would this deficiency seem curable 23 through further amendment by Plaintiff or even a new complaint drafted by appointed counsel. 24 1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 20) comporting with Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, it is the operative complaint and the Court applies Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 17) to it, rather than to the complaint on file at the time Defendant so moved 26 (Dkt. No. 5). 1 See Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018); Wilborn v. 2 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, neither leave to again amend or the 3 appointment of counsel is warranted. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED and 5 Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED in part 6 (because Plaintiff does not plead a federal question, warranting immediate dismissal, see Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the Court lacks the jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s sovereign immunity 8 argument). Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 20) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 DATED this 22nd day of December 2025. A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gurdeep Boparai v. Muckleshoot Indian Casino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurdeep-boparai-v-muckleshoot-indian-casino-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack