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.

Miley v. Pylypets

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

August 30, 2019

NICHOLAUS MILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ANNA PYLYPETS, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Anna Pylypets's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31. Ms. Pylypets moves for complete summary judgment on all of pro se Plaintiff Nicholaus Miley's claims. Having reviewed the briefing, the relevant law, and the record, the Court is fully informed.

         BACKGROUND

         Nicholaus Miley and Anna Pylypets met on a website called UkraineDate.com in early 2013. ECF No. 33-9 at 6. They eventually got married on July 12, 2014 in Idaho. ECF No. 33-1 at 1. According to allegations made by Mr. Miley, during the time between early 2013 and their marriage in 2014, Ms. Pylypets made several statements about her desire to marry Mr. Miley and to start a family with Mr. Miley. ECF No. 1 at 3.

         The marriage between Mr. Miley and Ms. Pylypets did not last. The couple separated on September 23, 2015. ECF No. 33-1 at 1. Mr. Miley filed a petition to annul the marriage in Spokane County Superior Court and argued that he married Ms. Pylypets out of pressure, force, or fraud. Id. at 2. Additionally, he asked the Superior Court to award him damages because Ms. Pylypets fraudulently induced him to marry her; to issue a decree to the Department of Homeland Security that their marriage was invalid; and to declare a certain immigration form invalid. Id. at 11. In response, Ms. Pylypets petitioned the court for divorce. ECF No. 33-3 at 5. On the morning of trial for the marriage dissolution proceedings, Mr. Miley voluntarily dismissed his petition to annul the marriage based on fraud. ECF No. 33-6 at 17. The Superior Court granted Ms. Pylypets's counterclaim for divorce. ECF Nos. 33-7 & 33-8.[1]

         Mr. Miley filed his original complaint in this case on March 9, 2018. ECF No. 1. In that complaint, he claimed that Ms. Pylypets violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal criminal law, Washington criminal law, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Washington Superior Court rules. Id. The Court dismissed Mr. Miley's complaint without prejudice because his federal claims failed to state claims for which relief could be granted and Mr. Miley failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000. ECF No. 5. Mr. Miley filed an amended complaint that alleged that Ms. Pylypets is liable for fraud, negligence, and a violation of Washington Superior Court rules. ECF No. 6. Ms. Pylypets moves for summary judgment on all of Mr. Miley's claims. ECF No. 31.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         A court may grant summary judgment where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” of a party's prima facie case, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-33 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists if sufficient evidence supports the claimed factual dispute, requiring “a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). A key purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.

         The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, or in the alternative, the moving party may discharge this burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's prima facie case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Id. at 324. The nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3 (internal quotations omitted).

         The Court will not infer evidence that does not exist in the record. See Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888-89 (1990). However, the Court will “view the evidence in the light most favorable” to the nonmoving party. Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2016). “The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

         DISCUSSION

         Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Ms. Pylypets argues that Mr. Miley has not established subject matter jurisdiction over his claims because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75, 000. ECF No. 31 at 9.

         A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). “[I]f, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot ...


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.