Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kula v. Every Watt Matters, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 10, 2018

DWAYNE KULA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
EVERY WATT MATTERS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MINUTE ORDER

         The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

         (1) The complaint in this matter alleges primarily state law claims and premises jurisdiction in part on diversity. The complaint alleges that plaintiff Dwayne Kula is a resident of Rhode Island and is the sole member of plaintiffs DRK Enterprises, LLC and Everlite 99, LLC. The complaint further alleges that Every Watt Matter International, LLC (“EWM International”) is a Washington limited liability company, but the Washington Secretary of State has no record of such entity. See https://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/. The caption of the complaint identifies a different entity as a defendant, namely Every Watt Matters, LLC, which is an active Washington limited liability company. See id. Whether the complaint's allegations concerning EWM International are actually about Every Watt Matters, LLC is unclear, but to the extent they are, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. According to the complaint, plaintiff Everlite 99 is a member of EWM International. Assuming that EWM International and defendant Every Watt Matters, LLC are the same entity, then at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of the same state, namely Rhode Island. See Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which its members are citizens).

         (2) Because the only basis of jurisdiction appears to be plaintiffs' federal claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations provisions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-452 (the “RICO Act”), the Court hereby DIRECTS plaintiffs to file a RICO case statement within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Minute Order. Failure to adequately respond to this Order might result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The RICO case statement shall include the facts upon which plaintiffs are relying to support their RICO claim as a result of the “reasonable inquiry” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The RICO statement shall be in a form using the numbers and letters as set forth below, and shall state in detail and with specificity the following information:

         1. RICO Provision: State whether the alleged unlawful conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (b), (c), and/or (d).

         2. Defendants: List each RICO defendant and state the alleged misconduct and basis of liability of each RICO defendant.

         3. Other RICO Violators: List all alleged RICO violators other than the RICO defendants listed above, and state the alleged misconduct of each alleged wrongdoer.

         4. Victims: List the alleged victims and state how each victim was allegedly injured.

         5. Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Describe in detail the pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts alleged for each RICO claim. A description of the pattern of racketeering shall include the following information:

         a. List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes that were allegedly violated;

         b. Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts;

         c. If the RICO claim is based on the predicate offenses of mail fraud, wire fraud, or fraud in the sale of securities, then state the circumstances constituting fraud “with particularity, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), including the time, place, and contents of the alleged misrepresentations, and the identity of persons to whom and by whom the alleged misrepresentations were made;

         d. State whether there has been a criminal conviction for violation of the predicate acts and, if so, provide particulars;

         e. State whether civil litigation has resulted in a judgment with respect to the predicate acts and, if so, provide particulars; and

         f. Describe how the predicate acts are both “related” and “continuous” within the meaning of H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989), and its progeny, including ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.