State of Washington v. City of Sunnyside

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 4, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-03174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON May 04, 2020 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO: 1:19-CV-3174-RMP 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT 10 CITY OF SUNNYSIDE; AL ESCALERA, in his official and 11 individual capacities; MELISSA RIVAS, in her official and individual 12 capacities; CHRISTOPHER SPARKS, in his official and 13 individual capacities; JOEY GLOSSEN, in his official and 14 individual capacities; JAMES RIVARD, in his official and 15 individual capacities;

16 Defendants.

17 18 BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Relief from Judgment by Defendants 19 City of Sunnyside, et al. ECF No. 19. Having considered Defendants’ motion, ECF 20 No. 19; Plaintiff’s response and declaration, ECF Nos. 20 and 21; Defendants’ reply, 21 1 ECF No. 23, and the remaining record, the Court denies Defendants’ motion and 2 leaves the judgment in this matter intact. 3 The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended 4 Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff had not

5 shown that it had parens patriae standing without prejudice. ECF No. 16 at 12 6 (citing Mox. Ex. rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017), which held 7 that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally is without prejudice).

8 The Court set a deadline for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint and 9 cautioned: “Failure to overcome the deficiencies identified with respect to standing 10 will result in dismissal with prejudice.” Id. at 13. 11 Before the amendment deadline, Plaintiff gave notice that it would not be

12 filing a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. The Court closed the file in the 13 case, and, shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to amend the judgment to dismiss 14 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice. ECF No. 19

15 However, the Court finds that amendment of the judgment is not warranted. 16 The Court’s order of dismissal gave Plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint 17 to correct the jurisdictional deficiency. ECF No. 16 at 12−13. The Court’s

18 dismissal order did not contemplate dismissal with prejudice as a sanction against 19 Plaintiff. Had Plaintiff elected to file a Second Amended Complaint, and again 20 failed to establish jurisdiction, then the Court would have dismissed the matter with 21 prejudice. Instead, Plaintiff filed a new cause of action in state court, which 1 Defendant removed to this Court under a new case number. See Case No. 20-cv- 2 3018-RMP (E.D.Wash.). 3 The Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal allowed Plaintiff to amend its complaint to 4 adequately allege standing. The Judgment dismissing the matter without prejudice

5 was not left intact as a matter of oversight or omission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), 6 as Defendants suggest. Rather, Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint 7 for Defendants to challenge and for the Court to review. Accordingly, Defendants’

8 motion seeking to amend the judgment is denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 19, is 10 DENIED. 11 2. The Judgment, ECF No. 17, shall not be amended.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 13 Order and provide copies to counsel. 14 DATED May 4, 2020.

15 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson 16 ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21