United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on review of the record. The
Court is familiar with the record and the materials herein,
and it is fully advised.
reasons set forth below, Defendants Pierce County, Tiffany
Garcia, and MaryBeth DiCarlo should be granted leave to amend
or withdraw their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (Dkt. 51); and Defendants Steve Caputo, Dominick De
Lango, HMS Ferries Inc., HMS Global Maritime Inc., Derick
Leenstra, Mylinda Miller, Tara Reynolds, and Thomas Ripa
(“HMS Defendants”) should be granted leave to
amend or withdraw their CR 12(b)(6) Motion for Dismissal of
Claims based on Alleged Violations of the Washington State
Constitution (Dkt. 80). If Defendants do not amend or
withdraw their pending motions to dismiss (Dkts. 51, and 80),
they should brief the Court, in writing, as to whether their
pending motions to dismiss relate to the operative complaint
(Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 83) in this matter.
20, 2019, Pierce County, Tiffany Garcia, Lauren Behm, and
MaryBeth DiCarlo (“County Defendants”) filed a
motion to dismiss (Dkt. 51) and a supplemental brief (Dkt.
12, 2019, Plaintiff untimely responded in opposition to
County Defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. 72.
19, 2019, the Court ruled on and granted County
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim; the Court ordered the Parties to
show cause, in writing, if any they have, why the Court
should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
and dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims against County
Defendants. Dkt. 74.
filed a response to the order to show cause (Dkt. 78) and
County Defendants filed a response to the order to show cause
August 20, 2019, the Court sua sponte issued an
order granting plaintiff leave to file a second amended
complaint as to County Defendants only. Dkt. 81. The Court
ordered that the second amended complaint, if any, shall be
served and filed no later than September 6, 2019. The Court
continued: “The Order on Pierce County Defendants'
CR 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 74) and rulings on Motions
to Compel (Dkts. 62; and 63) are HELD IN ABEYANCE until the
Court has considered the sufficiency of Plaintiff's
second amended complaint, if any.” Dkt. 81, at 2.
September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint. Dkt. 83. Among other amendments, the Second
Amended Complaint removed Lauren Behm as a named Defendant.
Compare Dkt. 39, at 3-6, with Dkt. 83, at
September 4, 2019, the County Defendants filed an Objection
to Proposed Second Amended Complaint, with three primary
arguments related to the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 86.
First, County Defendants argue that the Second Amended
Complaint deletes Defendant Lauren Behm as a named Defendant,
and she should be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. 86, at 3.
Second, County Defendants argue that personal jurisdiction
over Defendants, Tiffany Garcia, Lauren Behm, and MaryBeth
DiCarlo is absent because Plaintiff has not served any
amended complaints on them. Dkt. 86, at 3-4. Third, County
Defendants argue that the Second Amended Complaint fails to
assert a federal or state claim against County Defendants.
Dkt. 86, at 4-5.
August 15, 2019, HMS Defendants filed a CR 12(b)(6) Motion
for Dismissal of Claims based on Alleged Violations of the
Washington State Constitution. Dkt. 80. HMS Defendants also
filed a notice of errata replacing page one of their motion
to dismiss. Dkt. 82. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to HMS Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. 84. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery against the defendants. Dkt. 86. On September 6,
2019, HMS Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 87.
the Court first discusses this case's unusual and
confusing procedural history. Second, the Court discusses the
dismissal of Defendant Lauren Behm. Finally, the Court
briefly discusses personal jurisdiction and service of