United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court sua sponte on its prior orders to
show cause why these cases should not be consolidated.
Butler v. Raugh, No. C19-964RSM, Dkt. #19 (W.D.
Wash.) (“Butler v. Raugh”); Butler
v. Canty-Basham, No. C19-965RSM, Dkt. #20 (W.D. Wash.)
Canty-Basham”). In addition, various motions are
pending in the two actions. Finding that consolidation is
appropriate and wanting to provide the parties clear guidance
going forward, the Court orders consolidation and resolves
the pending motions as specified herein.
Underlying Facts and Claims
the Court can tell, this case appears to arise out of
Butler's visit to a hair salon. Butler received a hair
treatment that she maintains resulted in chemical burns to
her scalp. She initiated this action against the hair stylist
(Defendant Raugh) and the manager (Defendant Canty-Basham).
Butler seems to allege that the hair stylist was negligent,
that the salon violated Washington State sanitary standards
for cosmetologist, violated state laws related to
professional conduct, and engaged in dishonesty. Butler
claims that Defendants interfered with investigations of the
incident and engaged in a cover up. Under a heading of
“Jurisdiction, ” Butler lists her claims as:
“Libel, Slander, King County jurisdictions, Fraud,
defamation of character, intentional infliction of harm,
emotional distress, and the Damages of $3million.”
Butler v. Raugh, Dkt. #7 at 1; Butler v.
Canty-Basham, Dkt. #7 at 1.
Procedural History of Butler v. Raugh,
Butler v. Raugh was originally assigned to the
Undersigned and Butler was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. #5. Prior to issuing
summonses, and upon reviewing Butler's amended complaint,
the Court determined that the complaint suffered from several
deficiencies that warranted dismissal. Dkt. #8. These
deficiencies included, specifically, that Butler failed to
establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear the case-either federal question jurisdiction or
diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 2-3. The Court
granted Butler leave to file an amended complaint, within 21
days, remedying the identified deficiencies. Id. at
subsequently sought an extension of time, until October 15,
2019, to file an amended complaint. Dkt. #14. Butler
indicated that she needed additional time to seek legal
advice and amend the complaint. Id. Defendant Raugh
opposed this motion on the basis that Butler would be unable
to file a sufficient complaint even with additional time.
Dkt. #16. Butler's motion was noted for consideration on
July 26, 2019 and is ripe for consideration.
the Court's Order to Show Cause why these cases should
not be consolidated, Butler filed a “Motion for
clarification for the court and approval of third
complaint.” Dkt. #23. Butler again sought an extension
such that she be required to file any amended complaint no
sooner than October 15, 2019. Id. This motion is
noted for the Court's consideration on August 16, 2019
and Defendant Raugh has not responded.
Butler has filed a “Notice and Conflict of interest and
Motion to remove” defense counsel. Dkt. #24. This
motion is noted for the Court's consideration on August
16, 2019 and Defendant Raugh has not responded.
Procedural History of Butler v. Canty-Basham,
v. Canty-Basham was originally assigned to the Honorable
John C. Coughenour, United States District Court Judge, and
Butler was granted leave to proceed IFP. Dkt. #6. Butler
filed a motion requesting that the Court issue summonses.
Dkt. #5. That motion was noted for the Court's
consideration on July 12, 2019 and remains pending.
Id. After this case was reassigned to the
Undersigned, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause why
this action should not be consolidated with Butler v.
Raugh. Dkt. #17. In response, Butler filed a
“Motion for both cases if Consolidated to retain their
independent character and Response to judge's order to
show cause.” Dkt. #20. This motion, which will be
discussed substantively below, was noted for the Court's
consideration on July 31, 2019. Id.
preliminary review of the Complaint in Butler v.
Canty-Basham makes clear that it suffers from many of
the same deficiencies identified by the Court in Butler
v. Raugh. Perhaps recognizing the deficiencies, Butler
has filed a “Motion to Amend complaint.” Dkt.
#22. This motion is noted for the Court's consideration
on August 16, 2019 and Defendant Canty-Basham has not
Butler has also filed a “Notice and Conflict of
interest and Motion to remove” defense counsel in
Butler v. Canty-Basham. Dkt. #21. This motion is
substantively identical to the motion filed in Butler v.
Raugh, is noted for the Court's ...