United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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
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 &
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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 ...