United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants State of
Washington and Governor Jay Inslee
(“Defendants”)'s Motion to Dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(1), (5), and (6). Dkt. #22. Plaintiff Geneva
Langworthy has failed to file a response to this Motion. For
the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants'
Motion and will dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
Langworthy names as Defendants in this action the State of
Washington and Governor Jay Inslee. She states that the
Washington State Division of Vocational Rehabilitation has
systemically denied vocational rehabilitation services to
her, discriminating against her based on the class of her
disability in violation of 34 CFR 361.42. Her Complaint lists
various related regulations. For each regulation, she states
the requirements of that regulation and that Defendants
either violated the regulation or failed to follow these
requirements without any further details. Ms. Langworthy does
not describe when, where, or how Defendants violated these
regulations. At one point, Ms. Langworthy states a claim for
“ADA violations, ” again without further detail.
Ms. Langworthy's Complaint seeks as relief a cash
settlement in the amount of $250, 000.
Defendants' Motion under Rule 12(b)(5)
12(b)(5) allows a defendant to challenge the method and
content of service. “A summons must be served with a
copy of the complaint.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1).
Furthermore, the Summons and Complaint must be served by a
non-party to the proceedings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)-(j) provide for how service is to be made
on various individuals and entities. When serving a state,
service is completed by either serving the chief executive
officer or complying with that state's service laws
applicable to the defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j). When serving
an individual, service can be completed by: (1) complying
with the state law where the court is located or service is
being made; (2) personally serving the individual; (3)
leaving a copy at the individual's dwelling or usual
place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion
who resides there; or (4) serving an authorized agent.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). A plaintiff has 90 days from the filing of
a Complaint to serve a defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
argue that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the above
service requirements by, inter alia, serving only
the summonses without copies of the Complaint, and mailing
these summonses instead of serving them in person. Dkt. #22
at 5-7. Plaintiff was apparently the individual who completed
the alleged service in contravention of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2).
See Dkts. #9 and #10. More than 90 days have passed
since the filing of the Complaint.
has failed to file a response to this Motion. Under this
Court's Local Rules, “such failure may be
considered by the Court as an admission that the motion has
merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). The Court finds that
Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed without prejudice
given her failure to follow the above procedural rules for
service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule
making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts
alleged in the complaint as true, and makes all inferences in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker
v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824
(9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). However, the
court is not required to accept as true a “legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This
requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include
detailed allegations, but it must have “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent facial
plausibility, a plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.
Id. at 570.
argue that the entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint is made
up of legal conclusions in violation of the
Twombly/Iqbal standard. Dkt. #22 at 7. The Court
agrees. Plaintiff's allegations are conclusory and
essentially a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action. Accordingly, dismissal without prejudice is
so ruled, the Court need not consider Defendants'
arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). The Court finds
that dismissal without prejudice is proper given the
particular procedural posture of this ...