Case Information
*1 Case 3:06-cv-05453-RBL Document 65 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 2 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
WILLIAM DARYL STUTE, EVA M. STUTE (Children), SANDY A. HIPPS- STUTE, JACOB W. STUTE,
Case No. C06-5453RBL Plaintiffs, ORDER
v.
CITY OF WESTPORT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, JEAN A. COTTON, ATTORNEY, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant City of Westport’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #18].
Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows: Plaintiffs have again filed suit against the defendants based on events surrounding the dependency proceedings and the defendants’ actions leading up to the dependency of plaintiffs William D. Stute and Eva M. Stute’s two minor children, Sandy and Jacob. Previously the Court dismissed three cases filed by the Stutes based on the applicable three-year statute of limitations (C04-5123RBL, C04-5254RBL, and C04-5260JKA) and one case by way of stipulation (C04-5243RBL). The four cases were all based upon the same nucleus of operative fact. This case suffers from the same defect, and is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service , 382 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9 th Cir. 2004) (elements of res judicata are (1) identity of claims, (2) final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties).
ORDER
Page - 1 *2 Case 3:06-cv-05453-RBL Document 65 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2 Therefore, Defendant City of Westport’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #18], Defendant State of Washington, Attorney General of Washington’s Joinder in City of Westport’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #21], Defendant Grays Harbor County’s Joinder in Defendant City of Westport’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #24], and Defendant Jean A. Cotton’s Joinder in Defendant City of Westport’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #25] are GRANTED.
The defendants also request attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. While the Court is sympathetic to defendants having to expend resources to once again defend against allegations previously dismissed, the Court DENIES defendants’ requests for attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs are cautioned however, that any further attempt to file suit based upon these allegations or to continue to litigate in this case number may result in the imposition of significant monetary sanctions.
All pending motions filed by plaintiffs are DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.
Dated this 20 th day of October, 2006.
A RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER
Page - 2