United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MOTION TO
O. RICE Chief United States District Judge
THE COURT is Defendant's Rule 12 Partial Motion to
Dismiss. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff is represented by Julie A.
Anderson. Defendant is represented by Ronald J. Clark. This
matter was heard without oral argument on May 15, 2017. The
Court has reviewed the motion and record herein, and is fully
November 15, 2016, Plaintiff Jerusalen Barajas
(“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant
Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company
(“Defendant”) in Chelan County Superior Court.
ECF No. 1-2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441,
1446(b), Defendant removed the action to this Court invoking
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No.
March 1, 2017, the Court entered an Order dismissing
Plaintiff's claims that Defendant violated the Washington
Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) (RCW
48.30.015) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination
(“WLAD”) (RCW 49.60 et seq.). ECF Nos.
12, 1-2 at ¶¶ 3.7, 3.9-3.10. Notwithstanding, the
Court granted Plaintiff “leave to file an amended
complaint (with Plaintiff's name spelled correctly)
within thirty (30) days.” ECF No. 12 at 13.
filed an Amended Complaint on March 17, 2017, and again on
March 28, 2017. ECF Nos. 16, 18. Plaintiff also filed a
Notice of Washington State Constitutional Question Related to
RCW 48.30.015 on March 8, 2017, see ECF No. 14,
which the Court certified to the Washington Attorney General
for consideration on March 9, 2017, see ECF No. 15.
Thereafter, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for
reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss. See ECF
second time, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's
claims (1) under IFCA for Plaintiff's continued failure
to provide written notice as required by RCW 48.30.015(8)(a),
and (2) under the WLAD for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See ECF Nos. 6, 19, 20
at ¶ 3.
has failed to respond to the motion.
response to Defendant's first motion to dismiss, the
Court admonished Plaintiff's counsel for the late filing
of Plaintiff's memorandum in response to Defendant's
dismissal motion, in violation of Local Rule
(“LR”) 7.1(b)(2)(B), and failure to seek
permission to submit the late filing. See ECF No. 6
at n.3. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Local Rules or timely respond, could result in
adverse action by the Court. Id. With respect to the
instant motion, Plaintiff was required to file a responsive
memorandum by May 4, 2017. See LR 7.1(b). Plaintiff
has failed to respond or seek permission to file a late
reasons previously stated, ECF No. 12, the Court finds that
because Plaintiff still has not substantially complied with
the statutory notice requirement, his statutory IFCA claim is
not properly before the Court. Accordingly, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff's IFCA claim.
for the reasons previously stated, ECF No. 12,
Plaintiff's WLAD claim is dismissed. Plaintiff makes only
conclusory allegations of unequal treatment, while the WLAD
requires a showing of unequal treatment and that the unequal
treatment was motivated by race.
to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2)(B), an opposing party has 21 days to
file a response to a dispositive motion. The failure to
timely do so may be considered by the Court as “consent
to the entry of ...