Nair v. Copeland

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JAYAKRISHNAN K. NAIR, et al., CASE NO. C19-1296 MJP 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT JOHN DOE #2 12 v. A/K/A “TEDLAW” AND DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT 13 CHANNA COPELAND, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed the Motion to Dismiss 17 Defendant John Doe #2 a/k/a “Tedlaw” (Dkt. No. 117), all attached declarations and exhibits, 18 and relevant portions of the record,1 rules as follows: 19 IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; this matter will be dismissed with 20 prejudice as to Defendant John Doe #2, a/k/a “Tedlaw.” 21

22 1 Plaintiffs filed no opposition to this motion, invoking the effects of Local Rule 7(b)(2): “Except for motions for summary judgment, if a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the 23 court as an admission that the motion has merit.” 24 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, there being no defendants remaining in this case, that the 2 entire matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3 Although by operation of the Local Rules Plaintiffs have conceded the merit of this 4 defendant’s motion by their failure to file a responsive brief, the Court nevertheless articulates

5 the following grounds for ordering dismissal: 6 1. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction: None of the claims articulated against 7 Defendant Doe #2 arise under federal law, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 8 Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 9 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff Jayakrishnan Nair is a resident of the State of 10 Washington, as is Defendant Doe #2; nor do Plaintiffs allege damages which 11 exceed $75,000 as regards this Defendant. In view of the fact that all other 12 Defendants to this action have been dismissed, there are not even any related 13 federal claims to which Plaintiffs might assert supplemental jurisdiction for the 14 non-federal claims against Defendant Doe #2.

15 2. Failure to state a claim (FRCP 12(b)(6): Plaintiffs articulate no cognizable legal 16 theory linking the allegations against Defendant Doe #2 to any other valid claim. 17 “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. . . where the complaint lacks a 18 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” 19 Hartmann v. Calif. Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 20 2013). 21 It is the further finding of this Court that the deficiencies noted above are so severe that 22 Plaintiffs can articulate no set of facts which would cure them. Accordingly, this Court will 23

24 1 order the case against Defendant Doe #2 dismissed with prejudice. United States v. Corinthian 2 Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 Defendant Doe #2 was the last remaining Defendant in this action. With his dismissal, 4 therefore, this action can no longer be maintained. The Court orders this litigation dismissed in

5 its entirety, and judgment will enter finally terminating the lawsuit as a whole. 6 7 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiffs and to all counsel. 8 Dated June 5, 2020. A 9 10 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24