Hanks v. City of Seattle

W.D. Washington

Hanks v. City of Seattle

DecidedJuly 22, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00601

StatusUnknown

This text of Hanks v. City of Seattle (Hanks v. City of Seattle) 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

Hanks v. City of Seattle, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

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 GAYLE D. HANKS, et al., CASE NO. C21-0601-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ response to the Court’s order to show 16 cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 16.) 17 The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs’ to explain “how the case meets the subject 18 matter jurisdictional requirements based on either diversity of citizenship or a federal question.” 19 (Dkt. No. 15.) As the Court indicated in its order to show cause, “‘[i]f the Court determines at 20 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.’” (Dkt. No. 21 15 (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).) “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving 22 all jurisdictional facts.” See Indus Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 23 1990). Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. 24 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to 25 CLOSE this case, terminate outstanding motions, and send a copy of this order to Plaintiffs. 26 // 1 DATED this 22nd day of July 2021. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 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 GAYLE D. HANKS, et al., CASE NO. C21-0601-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ response to the Court’s order to show 16 cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 16.) 17 The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs’ to explain “how the case meets the subject 18 matter jurisdictional requirements based on either diversity of citizenship or a federal question.” 19 (Dkt. No. 15.) As the Court indicated in its order to show cause, “‘[i]f the Court determines at 20 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.’” (Dkt. No. 21 15 (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).) “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving 22 all jurisdictional facts.” See Indus Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 23 1990). Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. 24 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to 25 CLOSE this case, terminate outstanding motions, and send a copy of this order to Plaintiffs. 26 // 1 DATED this 22nd day of July 2021. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hanks v. City of Seattle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanks-v-city-of-seattle-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack