Preston v. SB&C Ltd

W.D. Washington

Preston v. SB&C Ltd

DecidedMarch 27, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01589

StatusUnknown

This text of Preston v. SB&C Ltd (Preston v. SB&C Ltd) 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

Preston v. SB&C Ltd, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MIKRAE E. PRESTON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01589-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 SB&C, LTD aka SKAGIT BONDED COLLECTOR, L.L.C., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court requests supplemental briefing 17 regarding whether this action must be dismissed—in whole or in part—based on the Rooker- 18 Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents federal district courts “from exercising appellate 19 jurisdiction over final state-court judgments,” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006), and, as 20 such, bars federal lawsuits “complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered 21 before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection 22 of those judgments,” Roberts v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 341 F. App'x 293, 294 (9th Cir. 2009) 23 (citation omitted). When the doctrine applies, “the federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of 24 1 subject matter jurisdiction.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, 2 Plaintiff asks the Court to, among other things, enter an injunction “requiring Defendant to apply 3 Charity Care to class members even if Defendant has obtained a [state court] judgment against 4 those members,” and “to vacate all judgments against class members where Defendant has violated

5 RCW 19.16.250 and .260, to vacate all judgments obtained against class members where 6 Defendant has failed to advised them in its initial compliant of their right to apply for Charity Care, 7 and to vacate all judgments obtained against class members.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 17–18. 8 Plaintiff’s supplemental brief is due by April 10, 2025, and Defendant’s supplemental brief 9 is due by April 17, 2025. Both submissions are limited to 2,800 words. 10 11 Dated this 27th day of March, 2025. 12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MIKRAE E. PRESTON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01589-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUESTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 SB&C, LTD aka SKAGIT BONDED COLLECTOR, L.L.C., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court requests supplemental briefing 17 regarding whether this action must be dismissed—in whole or in part—based on the Rooker- 18 Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents federal district courts “from exercising appellate 19 jurisdiction over final state-court judgments,” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006), and, as 20 such, bars federal lawsuits “complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered 21 before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection 22 of those judgments,” Roberts v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 341 F. App'x 293, 294 (9th Cir. 2009) 23 (citation omitted). When the doctrine applies, “the federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of 24 1 subject matter jurisdiction.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, 2 Plaintiff asks the Court to, among other things, enter an injunction “requiring Defendant to apply 3 Charity Care to class members even if Defendant has obtained a [state court] judgment against 4 those members,” and “to vacate all judgments against class members where Defendant has violated

5 RCW 19.16.250 and .260, to vacate all judgments obtained against class members where 6 Defendant has failed to advised them in its initial compliant of their right to apply for Charity Care, 7 and to vacate all judgments obtained against class members.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 17–18. 8 Plaintiff’s supplemental brief is due by April 10, 2025, and Defendant’s supplemental brief 9 is due by April 17, 2025. Both submissions are limited to 2,800 words. 10 11 Dated this 27th day of March, 2025. 12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Preston v. SB&C Ltd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/preston-v-sbc-ltd-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack