Rosco et al v. Trans Union LLC et al, No. 2:2017cv00086 - Document 12 (E.D. Wash. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 6 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Remand to state court filed by Russell D Rosco, Bonnie R Rosco; and granting 7 Defendants' Joint MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Shuckit & Associates PC, Montgomery Purdue Blankinship & Austin PLLC, Trans Union LLC. Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SK, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rosco et al v. Trans Union LLC et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 RUSSELL D. ROSCO and BONNIE R. ROSCO, NO: 2:17-CV-086-RMP 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 10 12 TRANSUNION, LLC; MONTGOMERY PURDUE BLANKINSHIP & AUSTIN, PLLC; and SHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES, PC, 13 Defendants. 11 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, ECF No. 6, and 16 Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 7. The Court 17 has reviewed the motions, the record, and is fully informed. 18 19 BACKGROUND Plaintiffs have established a pattern of filing frivolous claims and arguments 20 that are unsupported by any legal or factual bases. In Case No. 2:15-cv-00325- 21 RMP, Plaintiffs filed claims against seventeen defendants, thirteen of which have ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 been dismissed as Defendants. One of those Defendants, TransUnion, LLC, made 2 a settlement offer to Plaintiffs, which was unequivocally accepted. Both before 3 and after accepting the settlement terms, Plaintiffs demanded usurious amounts and 4 additional concessions, and repeatedly threatened to file lawsuits against opposing 5 counsel and their respective law firms. See generally ECF No. 154. When this 6 Court upheld the valid settlement agreement, Plaintiffs filed the present suit, in 7 accordance with their threats. 8 9 This current matter arises out of Plaintiffs’ four-page Complaint that was filed in state court and was properly removed to federal court due to Plaintiffs’ 10 assertions of violations of a federal statute, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 11 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809). See ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint argues that 12 Defendants are liable to the Roscos for violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 13 which they argue serves as the basis for claims under the Washington Consumer 14 Protection Act (“WCPA”). See id. The Complaint lists four “counts” that all 15 allege the same conduct: “publication” of what Plaintiffs assert was “personally 16 identifiable financial information” or “PIFI.” Id. These alleged “publication[s]” 17 consisted of Defendants having filed documents in this Court in Case No. 2:15-cv- 18 00325-RMP. Although the Court does not resolve disputed issues of fact at this 19 stage of litigation, this Court has reviewed each of the relevant documents, which 20 21 ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 2 1 are heavily redacted, and notes that this present case only arose when the Court 2 ruled against Plaintiffs in that prior matter. 1 3 Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this suit back to state court, as they urge 4 this Court to read their Complaint as only alleging claims pursuant to the 5 Washington Consumer Protection Act. See ECF No. 6. However, Plaintiffs 6 brought four counts that only allege violations of the same federal statute. ECF 7 No. 1. The Court is unconvinced by their attempt to avoid federal jurisdiction 8 (which also would avoid this Court’s familiarity with their vexatious history) by 9 arguing that they are only seeking liability through the Washington Consumer 10 Protection Act. The only Complaint before the Court states violations of a federal 11 statute; therefore, the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 12 The Court liberally construes pro se pleadings, but it bears noting that 13 Plaintiffs’ pleadings are rambling, difficult to understand, focus on irrelevant 14 arguments, and Plaintiffs continue to misrepresent the record to fit their present 15 interests. As one example, Plaintiffs stated that they did not “ask for any monetary 16 damages at the beginning of the prior lawsuit.” ECF No. 11 at 2. Contrary to this 17 statement, their Complaint in Case No. 2:15-cv-00325-RMP shows that Plaintiffs 18 initially sought “$1,000 per violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681etseq. [sic].” From the 19 20 1 21 documents sealed, as they do now in this separately filed matter. In Case No. 2:15-cv-00325-RMP, Plaintiffs never sought to have the relevant ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 3 1 start of that lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought large amounts of monetary damages, based in 2 large part on baseless claims. 3 ANALYSIS 4 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the dismissal of a complaint 5 where the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. 6 CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to this rule “tests the legal 7 sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In 8 reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court accepts all well-pleaded 9 allegations as true and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the 10 non-moving party. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 11 2010) (citing Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031- 12 32 (9th Cir. 2008)). 13 To withstand dismissal, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a 14 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 15 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 16 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 17 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 18 While specific legal theories need not be pleaded, the pleadings must put the 19 opposing party on notice of the claim. Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 877 (9th 20 Cir. 2001) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A plaintiff is not 21 required to establish a probability of success on the merits; however, he or she ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 4 1 must demonstrate “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 2 unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] 3 [p]laintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ 4 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 5 elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 6 “The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act prohibits financial institutions’ disclosure of 7 non-public personal information. There is no private right of action under 15 8 U.S.C. § 6801.” Gehron v. Best Reward Credit Union, No. 10CV2051-IEG BLM, 9 2011 WL 976624, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2011). In Plaintiffs’ Motion to 10 Remand, ECF No. 6, they recognize this fact, stating, “[a]s the court and 11 Defendants are most likely aware, there is no private right to sue under the Federal 12 statute of GLBA.” The four “counts” in Plaintiffs’ Complaint all allege violations 13 of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, and accordingly, are dismissed with prejudice. 14 To the extent Plaintiffs’ four counts are intended to support state claims for 15 violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiffs fail to allege 16 facts that would support such a claim. “[T]he Washington State Supreme Court 17 held a private plaintiff’s CPA claim ‘must establish five distinct elements: (1) 18 unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public 19 interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; [and] (5) 20 causation.’” Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 942 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1116 (W.D. Wash. 21 2013) (quoting Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insur. Co., ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 5 1 105 Wash.2d 778, 780 (1986)). Plaintiffs’ entire case is premised on their 2 argument that their “PIFI” was “published” when Defendants filed documents with 3 this Court in Case No. 2:15-cv-00325-RMP. They fail to allege how this was an 4 “unfair or deceptive act or practice.” The Court need not proceed further to state 5 how Plaintiffs’ factual allegations fail to meet the other elements of a WCPA 6 claim, as the Court finds that this case is simply a vexatious attempt to harass 7 Defendants as a result of this Court’s rulings in Defendants’ favor in Case No. 8 2:15-cv-00325-RMP. 9 Plaintiffs recognize that they do not have a private cause of action under the 10 federal statute that they invoke. Based on the foregoing discussion, there is 11 nothing remaining for this Court to remand to state court, as the Court declines to 12 allow Plaintiffs to further litigate a baseless WCPA claim that is premised on 13 Defendants’ filing of documents before this Court. 14 The Court recognizes that “leave to amend need not be granted if 15 amendment would be futile.” Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, 862 F.Supp.2d 16 1111, 1115 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (citing Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 17 (9th Cir. 2002)). However, “[d]ismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend 18 is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not 19 be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 20 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)). 21 ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 6 1 The Court finds that granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their deficient Complaint 2 would be futile. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 4 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF No. 6, is DENIED AS 5 6 7 MOOT. 2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 8 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 9 4. All other pending motions, if any, ARE DENIED AS MOOT. 10 11 12 The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to counsel and pro se Plaintiffs, and close this case. DATED July 10, 2017. 13 s/Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DISMISSING CASE~ 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
