United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma
ERIC DOCKEN, et. al., Plaintiffs,
CITY OF EDGEWOOD, MARK BAUER, and JANE DOE BAUER, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO REMAND
Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Violation of Civil Rights Act (Dkt. 24), Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Dkt. 29), Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action (Dkt. 31, re-filed and referred herein as Dkt. 32), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand to Washington State Court, to Terminate all Motions, Stay Discovery, and for Award of Fees and Costs (Dkt. 37), and Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Disclose Computation of Damages Being Claimed and Supporting Documentation as Required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Dkt. 33). The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motions and the file.
In this civil rights case, Plaintiff property owners seek damages and other relief against the City of Edgewood, Washington, the City Manager, Mark Bauer, and Mr. Bauer’s wife and marital community, for the violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights in connection with an attempted 2011 assessment for construction of a proposed sewer system. Dkt. 1-1.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2014, the Washington State Court of Appeals annulled the assessments on statutory grounds and then held that the City of Edgewood also “denied the owners’ due process right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Hasit LLC v. City of Edgewood (Local Improvement Dist. #1), 179 Wash.App. 917, 954 (2014).
After the 30 day period for appeal or reconsideration of that decision lapsed, Plaintiffs filed this action in Pierce County Superior Court. Docken v. City of Edgewood, Pierce County Washington Superior Court Case number 14-2-07968-6. In Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, they seek damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et. seq., for violation of their procedural due process rights as found by the Washington State Court of Appeals in Hasit. Dkt. 1, at 20. In their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek an injunctive relief: an order enjoining the City from assessing to them the legal costs, including attorneys’ fees, associated with “litigating its unconstitutional assessment process.” Id.
Defendants removed this case on May 2, 2014, asserting that this court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question, because Plaintiffs were seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et. seq. Dkt. 1. Defendants’ Answer, filed June 24, 2014, asserts, in part, that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Dkt. 14, at 23.
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Violation of Civil Rights Act, arguing that summary judgment should be entered as to the Defendants’ liability for violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Dkt. 24. Plaintiffs state that a trial will be necessary to determine damages. Id.
Defendants responded timely (Dkt. 28) and filed their Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Dkt. 29). Defendants filed an additional motion, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ second cause of action. Dkt. 32. In both motions, Defendants argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider either of Plaintiffs’ causes of action because of the TIA, and even if it did, should not exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of comity. Dkts. 29 and 32. Defendants also advance other arguments for dismissal. Id.
As ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs filed a combined response to the Defendants’ motions and reply to their own motion on March 23, 2015. Dkt. 36. In this pleading, Plaintiffs also argue that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ claims under TIA and /or should decline to exercise any jurisdiction it may have for comity reasons. Id.
The same day, Plaintiffs also filed their motion for remand, again arguing that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant the TIA. Dkt. 37. In that motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should remand the case, terminate all motions, stay discovery and award them fees and costs “associated with the unwarranted federal phase of this litigation directly as a result of Defendants’ legal maneuvers.” Id., at 2-3. The motion to remand is noted for consideration on April 17, 2015. Id.
Defendants also have pending a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 33. That motion is noted for April 3, 2015. Id.
A. CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - THE TIA AND THE DOCTRINE ...