Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families
2:24-cv-00554
W.D. Wash.
May 29, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. FZ Realty and BH Shipping own adjacent properties in Yonkers, with FZ Realty's property containing an apartment building and a parking area accessible through a driveway tunnel on BH Shipping's property [lines="24-26"].
  2. A dispute arose when BH Shipping posted a notice to close access to the parking area via its property effective September 15, 2020 [lines="27"].
  3. FZ Realty filed suit in September 2020, seeking declarations of easement by prescription and necessity, as well as sanctions [lines="28"].
  4. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing BH Shipping from blocking access to the driveway [lines="29"].
  5. BH Shipping subsequently moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and assert that FZ Realty has no easement [lines="31"].

Issues

  1. Whether FZ Realty has an easement by necessity over BH Shipping's property [lines="38"].
  2. Whether FZ Realty has an easement by prescription over BH Shipping's property [lines="42"].
  3. Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying BH Shipping’s request to strike FZ Realty’s complaint [lines="45"].

Holdings

  1. The court found that FZ Realty does not have an easement by necessity, as access to parking was deemed a convenience rather than a necessity [lines="40"].
  2. FZ Realty does have an easement by prescription, as BH Shipping did not demonstrate that the use of the easement was not open, notorious, and continuous for the required period [lines="44"].
  3. The Supreme Court should have dismissed FZ Realty’s cause of action for sanctions since New York does not recognize such an independent action [lines="45"].

OPINION

*1 Case 2:24-cv-00554-JLR Document 38 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 2 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE SOPHIE HARTMAN, et al., CASE NO. C24-0554JLR Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al.,

Defendants. Before the court is a stipulated motion to extend the noting date as to Plaintiffs Sophie Hartman, M.H., and C.H.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for leave to amend their complaint. (Mot. Extend (Dkt. # 35); see Mot. Leave (Dkt. # 22).) The stipulated motion, however, is not signed by counsel for Defendants Seattle Children’s Hospital, Nancy Chase, and Beth Nauert. ( See Mot. Extend at 3.) Plaintiffs note that they “have not heard back from counsel” for those parties. ( Id. at 1 n.1.) //

ORDER - 1

Case 2:24-cv-00554-JLR Document 38 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2 1 Failure to include signatures from counsel for all parties constitutes grounds for denial. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 1(c)(7) (noting that a stipulated motion is an agreement “between or among the parties”). Nevertheless, the court has the inherent authority to manage its dockets, Dietz v. Bouldin , 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016), and finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ request.

The court therefore GRANTS the motion to extend the noting date as to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (Dkt. # 35). The court DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint (Dkt. # 22) for June 12, 2024.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2024.

A JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge ORDER - 2