Popa v. PSP Group LLC

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ASHLEY POPA, CASE NO. C23-0294JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 PSP GROUP LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the court is Plaintiff Ashley Popa’s notice of election to stand on her first 16 amended complaint and request for entry of a final order in this case. (Notice (Dkt. 17 # 69).) On October 24, 2023, the court granted Defendant PSP Group, LLC’s (“PSP”) 18 motion to dismiss. (10/24/23 Order (Dkt. # 67).) The court concluded that Ms. Popa had 19 not demonstrated that she has Article III standing to pursue her claims in this case 20 because she failed to plausibly allege that she suffered a cognizable injury-in-fact. (Id. at 21 5-13.) Thus, the court dismissed Ms. Popa’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject 22 matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 13 (citing Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 1 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In general, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without 2 prejudice.”)). The court granted Ms. Popa leave to amend, however, based on its

3 conclusion that it was possible that Ms. Popa might be able to cure the deficiencies in her 4 complaint. (Id.) 5 Ms. Popa did not amend her complaint. (See generally Dkt.) Instead, she 6 contends that the allegations in her first amended complaint demonstrate that she has 7 standing under Article III. (Notice at 2.) She asks, therefore, that the court enter a final 8 appealable order dismissing this case so that she may file an appeal. (Id. (quoting WMX

9 Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[A] plaintiff, who 10 has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does 11 not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be 12 obtained.”)).) 13 The court ORDERS Defendants PSP and Microsoft Corporation to SHOW

14 CAUSE, by no later than December 1, 2023, why the court should not issue a final order 15 and judgment of dismissal in accordance with Ms. Popa’s request. Defendants’ responses 16 shall be limited to 1,000 words in length. No replies shall be filed unless requested by 17 the court. 18 Dated this 27th day of November, 2023.

19 A 20 United States District Judge 22