Jensen v. Comcast Corporation

Opinion

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

9 EDDY B. JENSEN, CASE NO. C20-293RSM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 11 MOTION TO DISMISS v. 12 COMCAST CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. 14 This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) 15 brought by Defendant Comcast Corporation. Dkt. #10. Plaintiff Jensen opposes. Dkt. #12. 16 In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as 17 true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v. 18 Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). 19 However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual 20 allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 21 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 22 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met 23 when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 24 1 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include detailed allegations, but it must have “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 2 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent 3 facial plausibility, a plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Id. at 570. 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint is completely devoid of factual background. See Dkt. #1. Mr. 5 Jensen states he is suing Comcast for “sexual discrimination” but provides no citation to law. 6 Id. at 3. The amount in controversy is stated as “one hundred billion dollars.” Id. at 5. The 7 entire statement of claim reads: “due to the respondents [sic] actions I was impoverished and 8 subject to demeaning & abusive comments & behaviors.” Id. Under “Relief” Mr. Jensen states 9 “I face direct employment losses & pension opportunities at one million dollars & punitive 10 damages determined by the court.” Id. 11 The Complaint clearly fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)’s requirement that a pleading contain a 12 “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Absent 13 further information, Comcast would clearly be unable to respond to this Complaint and 14 dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend would be warranted. 15 Comcast, however, informs the Court that Mr. Jensen has previously filed suit against it 16 for this exact claim. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an identical Complaint with this Court 17 alleging the exact same claim of “sexual discrimination.” Case No. 19-1646-JCC, Dkt. #1. 18 Comcast filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on November 22, 2019. Case No. 19- 19 1646-JCC, Dkt. #4. Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion, and, on December 30, 2019, the 20 Honorable John C. Coughenour granted the Motion to Dismiss and did not grant Plaintiff leave 21 to amend. Case No. 19-1646-JCC, Dkt. #9. Mr. Jensen filed a “Request the Court to 22 Reconsider and Reopen the case” (“Plaintiff’s Request to Reconsider”) on January 10, 2020; 23 Judge Coughenour denied Plaintiff’s Request in its entirety on February 3, 2020, noting that 24 1 Plaintiff “never explains why he failed to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss or prove in a timely manner that Defendant was ‘trying to deceive and lie to the Court.’” Case No. 19- 2 1646-JCC, Dkt. #15. 3 Mr. Jensen does not deny any of the above. Given this procedural background, the 4 Court agrees with Comcast that this case is properly be dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. #10 5 at 4–5 (citing, inter alia, United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 6 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)). Even if res judicata did not apply, the Court would dismiss this 7 case with prejudice and without leave to amend given that Mr. Jensen has previously pursued 8 the same claims, received notice of the deficiency of his claims, and failed to supplement his 9 new Complaint with additional facts or legal argument. 10 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court 11 hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Comcast’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #10, is 12 GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED. 13

14 DATED this 18th day of May, 2020. 15 16

17 A 18 19 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24