Watters v. Parviz
2:23-cv-00755
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 17, 2023Background
- In March 2022 Watters created a public website about his ex-girlfriend, Mahsa Parviz, to “shame” or “expose” alleged misrepresentations about her resume and criminal history.
- Parviz contacted Watters in May 2023 demanding removal of the webpage or threatening a domestic violence complaint; Watters promptly filed suit reproducing the website content and seeking damages, fees, and a declaration that Parviz is a vexatious litigant.
- The Court issued an initial order to show cause because Watters’ original complaint failed to plead a non-conclusory amount in controversy; Watters then filed a Verified First Amended Complaint adding a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), and seeking an injunction.
- Parviz (then in federal custody) moved to dismiss under Rule 12 for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, insufficient process/service, failure to state a claim, and failure to join an indispensable party; she also sought sanctions and a protective order.
- The Court held the CFAA allegations were inadequately pleaded (no plausible allegation of extortion involving a protected computer or of unauthorized access/hacking of Harvard systems) and therefore GRANTED dismissal of the federal claim.
- With no viable federal claim remaining, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and ordered Watters to show cause why the case should not be dismissed; the Court denied Parviz’s sanctions motion without prejudice and denied broader sealing beyond Rule 5.2(a) protections for filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of CFAA claim | Watters alleges Parviz extorted him and falsified a Harvard persona, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) and (a)(4). | Parviz says no extortion involving damage or unauthorized access occurred and no facts show hacking or exceeding authorized access. | CFAA claim inadequately pleaded; dismissed. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims | Watters seeks to keep state-law claims in federal court after amending. | Parviz argues federal claim fails, so federal court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss state claims absent persuasive reason not to. |
| Rule 12 defects (jurisdiction/process/service) | Watters originally pleaded amount in controversy conclusorily and later added CFAA claim to invoke federal jurisdiction. | Parviz highlights lack of factual support for federal jurisdiction and raises other Rule 12 defenses. | Court found jurisdictional pleading insufficient and other Rule 12 bases merited dismissal of federal claim; directed show cause re dismissal. |
| Sanctions and protective order | Watters did not intend bad-faith filing; he claims the suit asserts legally cognizable harms. | Parviz seeks sanctions (Rule 11, §1927) for filing against an allegedly incompetent person and for frivolous bad-faith claims; seeks sealing/protective order. | Sanctions denied without prejudice (may be renewed after show-cause response); sealing beyond Rule 5.2(a) denied; certain exhibits already sealed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (courts ordinarily decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed)
- W. Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519 (9th Cir. 1990) (§ 1927 fees appropriate where attorney acts in bad faith or vexatiously multiplies proceedings)