Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC
3:23-cv-05974
W.D. Wash.
Jul 12, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Plaintiff Xiuli He, a Chinese citizen, filed for asylum in July 2020 after fleeing China due to a forced abortion related to the one-child policy [lines="34-36"].
  2. Her I-589 application for asylum has been pending for three years and four months, causing her significant emotional distress [lines="25, 64"].
  3. Xiuli's son is enrolled as an international student at Pennsylvania State University, imposing a financial burden of $42,000 per year in tuition [lines="52-53, 47-49"].
  4. The processing of her application has legal implications for her father, who remains in China and is facing health issues [lines="56-61"].
  5. The defendants moved to dismiss her claims for relief, citing procedural challenges under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act [lines="26-28, 24-25"].

Issues

  1. Whether the court has the authority to compel action on Xiuli He’s I-589 application through the Mandamus Act [lines="158-159"].
  2. Whether the delay in adjudicating the I-589 application constitutes an unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act [lines="211-212"].

Holdings

  1. The court ruled that there was no clear right to mandamus relief because the plaintiff could not demonstrate that she was entitled to the immediate adjudication of her application [lines="162-164"].
  2. The processing delay was deemed not unreasonable given the current backlog and the complexity of handling I-589 applications, thereby dismissing the APA claim [lines="250-252"].

OPINION

GREG SKISTIMAS et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOTWORX FRANCHISING LLC et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05974-DGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

July 12, 2024

David G. Estudillo, United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 22) AND STRIKING CROSS-MOTIONS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES (DKT. NOS. 44, 48)

I INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) and cross-motions regarding contractual dispute resolution procedures (Dkt. Nos. 44, 48). For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES as moot the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) and STRIKES the parties’ cross-motions (Dkt. Nos. 44, 48). The parties are afforded leave to file new motions and briefing consistent with the parameters of this order.

II DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

Individual Defendants Nancy Price, Patricia Gattuso, Stephen Smith, Jessica Matherne, Jodie Mateu and Melissa Ferguson moved to dismiss Plaintiff‘s original complaint.1 (Dkt. No. 22.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 32) as well as a response opposing the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35). Rather than file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the Individual Defendants filed a reply attacking Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 42.)

As a general matter, an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint, rendering the original complaint without legal effect. ; . Consequently, courts routinely deny as moot motions to dismiss that precede the filing of an amended complaint. See ; (denying as moot motion to dismiss when, “in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, [the plaintiff] filed a first amended complaint“); (“Once an amended complaint is filed, the previous complaint becomes null and void, and generally any pending motion to dismiss that was directed at the previous pleading will be thus rendered moot.“).

However, a court may decline to deny as moot a motion to dismiss filed prior to an amended complaint when “the amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the original complaint.” . Additionally, “when the amended complaint is substantially identical to the original complaint, [the] amended complaint will not moot [a] pending motion to dismiss.” .

The Court acknowledges that broadly construed, the arguments in the Individual Defendants’ reply (which challenges the amended complaint) are substantially similar to those advanced in their opening motion (which challenges the original complaint). Namely, the Individual Defendants argue in each filing that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants and that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). (Dkt. Nos. 22 at 1, 4-5; 42 at 3-4.)

But upon review of the original and amended complaints, it is not clear the amended complaint suffers from precisely the same deficiencies as the original complaint, or that the two complaints are substantially identical. For instance, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint adds a claim (Dkt. No. 32 at 26) as well as specific allegations relating to particular defendants (see, e.g., id. at 10). Entertaining the motion to dismiss on the current record would require the Court to discern the exact degree to which the Individual Defendants’ arguments in their opening motion apply to new allegations in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. And although the Individual Defendants’ reply addresses Plaintiffs’ amendments to some degree, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to defend against the Individual Defendants’ challenges. The Court therefore cannot find it appropriate to consider the merits of the motion to dismiss.

The Court DENIES as moot the motion to dismiss. Defendants may file a renewed motion to dismiss specifically targeting Plaintiffs’ amended complaint no later than July 26, 2024.

B. Cross-Motions on Contractual Dispute Resolution Procedures

Also before the Court are cross-motions regarding contractual dispute resolution procedures. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 48.) It is unclear why the parties required cross-motions to present their positions to the Court, as upon review of the motions, the Court finds that a single motion by Defendants, opposition by Plaintiffs, and reply by Defendants would be sufficient. Indeed, Plaintiffs appear to have copy and pasted numerous paragraphs from their cross-motion into their response. (See Dkt. Nos. 48 at 7-8, 27-28; 53 at 5-6, 14.) Defendants have done the same. (See Dkt. Nos. 44 at 10-13; 56 at 6-10.) And ultimately, the parties’ respective motions and responses seek the same relief: Plaintiffs’ motion and response both ask that “the Court [] declare the Arbitration Clause, as a whole, unconscionable, void, and unenforceable” (Dkt. Nos. 48 at 28; 53 at 14); and Defendants’ motion and response both ask that the Court “enforce the parties’ agreement and compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with the dispute resolution process” (Dkt. Nos. 44 at 14-15; 56 at 16).

The Court also observes that the parties’ citations do not fully comply with the Court‘s rules. By way of example, Defendants’ motion cites “pages 68-69” of “Exhibit B” (Dkt. No. 44 at 8); however, as far as the Court can tell, Exhibit B does not contain any page with those numbers (see Dkt. No. 45 at 73-149). The Court stresses that it will not credit legal and factual assertions not supported by specific and accurate citation to authority or the record. “Citations to documents already in the record . . . must include a citation to the docket number and the page number.” LCR 10(e)(6). And “[r]eferences in the parties’ filings to [] exhibits should be as specific as possible” by, for instance, citing “specific page numbers[] [or] paragraphs.” LCR 10(e)(10) (emphasis added). If an exhibit contains multiple page numbers on a single page—as is the case with Defendants’ exhibits—it must be made clear for the Court which page number is being referenced.

The redundancy, excess, and lack of specific and accurate citations in the parties’ briefing significantly impede the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see also LCR 1(a). The Court accordingly STRIKES the parties’ cross-motions and orders that the parties SHALL consolidate their arguments regarding contractual dispute resolution procedures into the following briefing schedule:

FilingDeadline
Defendants’ MotionAugust 30, 2024
Plaintiffs’ OppositionSeptember 20, 2024
Defendants’ ReplySeptember 27, 2024

The length of the parties’ filings is governed by Local Civil Rule 7(e)(3).

III CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES as moot the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 22), STRIKES the parties’ cross-motions (Dkt. Nos. 44, 48), and ORDERS that renewed motions may be filed consistent with this order.

Dated this 12th day of July 2024.

David G. Estudillo

United States District Judge

Notes

1
The motion to dismiss also was purportedly brought by Defendant Hotworx Franchising, LLC. (See Dkt. No. 22 at 1.) But counsel does not explain why Hotworx has standing to file a motion to dismiss claims against its co-defendants.
Read the detailed case summary