Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club
2:23-cv-00855
W.D. Wash.Nov 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, including Elle Nguyen, filed suit against Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club (MIBBBC), Boys & Girls Club of King County (BGCKC), and individuals, alleging tortious interference and discrimination related to their children’s participation in youth sports.
- On initial motions to dismiss, only select claims survived: intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Munson for racially demeaning comments, negligence and IIED claims for failure to address bullying or racially charged comments, and unchallenged discrimination claims against BGCKC.
- Plaintiffs were permitted to move to amend their complaint, specifically to address deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior order.
- Plaintiffs’ motion to amend sought to reinstate and add claims including negligence, IIED, defamation, Consumer Protection Act (CPA) violations, and negligent retention/supervision.
- Certain defendants moved to strike select paragraphs of the proposed amended complaint as overly verbose and insufficiently plain or clear under FRCP 8(a).
- The Court ultimately granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend, allowing some new allegations to proceed while barring those found deficient or futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Striking verbose/amorphous claims under Rule 8(a) | Allegations sufficient, relate similar facts/case law | Paragraphs too narrative, unclear, cite case law not facts | Denied; defendants can respond, Rule 8(a) not violated |
| Timeliness/undue delay in amendment | Delay due to change in counsel/case posture, no prejudice | Plaintiffs waited months, untimely | Delay not prejudicial; amendment not barred |
| Negligence/IIED – MIBBBC | MIBBBC owed general duty to children in care | Facts same as prior dismissal, no duty owed for placement/retention on teams | Denied; no legal duty established |
| Negligence/IIED – BGCKC | BGCKC aware of harassment/complaints in 2021 | Not challenged | Granted; factual amendment could support negligence claim |
| Negligence/IIED – Munson | Munson failed to respond to bullying/harassment | Not opposed (abandonment of racial comments claim) | Granted as to failure to respond only |
| Discrimination – BGCKC | Race-based discrimination continues, violates Title VI/RCW | Not opposed | Granted; claims may proceed |
| Defamation – All Defendants | Defendants made false statements harming reputation | Statements are true/misrepresented/factually unsupported | Granted; sufficient facts for plausible claim |
| CPA – MIBBBC & BGCKC | Unfair/deceptive acts in youth sports program (e.g., removals) | Disputes are private, no public interest affected | Denied, except as to discrimination-based CPA claim against BGCKC |
| Negligent supervision/retention – BGCKC | BGCKC failed to supervise/retain responsible staff | Not opposed | Granted; claims may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1994) (strong policy in favor of allowing amendment)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (pleadings should facilitate resolution on the merits)
- Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (grounds for denying leave to amend)
- Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233 (Wash. 2001) (duty in negligence is legal question based on various considerations)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (Wash. 1986) (CPA requires showing of public interest involvement)
- Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 Wn.2d 907 (Wash. 2001) (discriminatory conduct may support CPA claim if public interest affected)