Khandelwal v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ANITA KHANDELWAL, CASE NO. C21-5314 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 KING COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Anita Khandelwal’s, Director, 14 King County Department of Public Defense, motion for leave to file amended complaint. 15 Dkt. 6. The Court has considered the motion, the briefing, and the remainder of the file 16 and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. 17 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Khandelwal filed her complaint on April 9, 2021 in the Superior Court for the 19 State of Washington, Pierce County. Dkt. 1-2. She alleges that the King County 20 Prosecuting Attorney’s Office’s practice of seeking to change conditions of pretrial 21 release ex parte violates the Department of Public Defense’s clients’ constitutional, 22 statutory, and court-rule created rights. Specifically, she alleges violations of the Sixth 1 Amendment’s and Article I, Section 22 of the Washington Constitution’s right to counsel, 2 the due process protections in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, 3 section 1 of the Washington Constitution, and violation of Washington State Court Rule

4 3.1. On April 29, 2021, Defendants King County Superior Court, Presiding Judge Jim 5 Rogers, Judge Karen Donohue, and Judge Veronica Galvan (“KCSC Defendants”) 6 removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. 7 On May 3, 2021, Khandelwal moved to amend her complaint to remove alleged 8 violations of federal law and add an alleged violation of Washington State Court Rule

9 3.2. See Dkt. 6-1. On May 17, 2021, Defendants King County, King County Prosecuting 10 Attorney’s Office, Dan Clark, and Dan Satterberg (“County Defendants”) responded, 11 Dkt. 12, and the KCSC Defendants also responded, Dkt. 14. On May 21, 2021, 12 Khandelwal replied. Dkt. 15. 13 Khandelwal argues that she is entitled to amend her complaint as a matter of

14 course and seeks to amend her complaint to omit her federal claims because state law will 15 provide the relief she seeks. The KCSC Defendants contend that the amendment sought 16 represents “a dilatory maneuver for the purpose of gamesmanship.” Dkt. 12 at 4. The 17 County Defendants contend that the amended complaint “attempt[s] to use amendments 18 to alter and evade the legitimate federal claims in this case.” Dkt. 14 at 3.

19 II. DISCUSSION 20 The Court first considers whether amendment is proper under Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 15. In determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider 22 five factors: “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) 1 futility of amendment, and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” 2 Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir 1990). 3 A court may deny leave to amend “where the amendment would be futile . . . or

4 where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal.” Saul v. United States, 928 5 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A] proposed amendment is futile only if no set of facts 6 can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and 7 sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rukoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 2019, 214 (9th Cir. 8 1988), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

9 Defendants’ arguments pertain to the risk of destroying the Court’s subject-matter 10 jurisdiction and whether the amended complaint could be remanded, rather than to 11 directly establishing bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility. 12 While “a party may not employ Rule 15(a) to interpose an amendment that would 13 deprive the district court of jurisdiction over a removed action,” 6 Charles Alan Wright,

14 Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1477 (2d ed 15 1990), “[i]t is well settled ‘that a federal court does have the power to hear claims that 16 would not be independently removable even after the basis for removal jurisdiction is 17 dropped from the proceedings,’” Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 18 (1991) (quoting Swett v. Schenk, 792 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986)). “It is generally

19 within a district court’s discretion either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendant 20 state claims or to remand them to state court.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court does not 21 find bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice in Khandelwal’s assessment that she can secure 22 complete relief asserting only claims under state law. 1 Whether this case should be remanded is a subject for a separate motion, one that 2 Khandelwal has indicated that she intends to file. Dkt. 15 at 3 n.1. Defendants may 3 present their contention that Khandelwal’s complaint is artfully pleaded and not properly

4 subject to remand in response to such a motion. 5 III. ORDER 6 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Khandelwal’s motion for leave to file 7 amended complaint, Dkt. 6, is GRANTED. 8 Dated this 7th day of July, 2021. A 9 10 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 11 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22