1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY

) JUDGMENT

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion for Summary

Judgment and/or Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and Lack of Jurisdiction.” Dkt.

# 50. Defendant argues that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter

because plaintiff has raised questions of state law regarding his entitlement to workers’

compensation benefits and lost wages from his former employer. In the alternative, defendant

argues that plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law because the administrative remedies provided

by the state are exclusive and plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact in

support of his claims. Although plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition to defendant’s request

for judgment, the Court has reviewed all of plaintiff’s submissions since the filing of this motion

and has considered the allegations and arguments contained in his “Motion on Courts Calendar

for July 28, 2006,” (Dkt. # 56) insofar as they are relevant to the issues raised by defendant.

This Court, unlike the Superior Courts of the State of Washington, is a court of

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 59 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Plaintiff’s July 26, 2006, submission contains an ambiguous reference to the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration Act. Dkt. # 56 at 2 (OSHA - SAFETY ISSUE, 111 3rd. AVE.

BELLEVUE - Should be: Jerry A. Brenden fell through unsafe Hand Rail.”). The complaint in this

action seeks a recalculation of plaintiff’s post-injury benefits, asserting fraud and injustice under RCW

48.30.180. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which one could reasonably infer an OSHA claim

against defendant for failure to maintain a safe workplace.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2-

limited jurisdiction, meaning that the undersigned can hear only certain types of cases. The two

primary categories of cases that are subject to federal jurisdiction involve (1) disputes arising

under the United States Constitution and/or federal law and (2) disputes arising between citizens

of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1332. Plaintiff has the burden of alleging facts which give rise to federal jurisdiction. See,

e.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975) (“It is the responsibility of the complainant

clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the

dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.”).

Plaintiff has not asserted a claim under the federal constitution or laws. The facts

alleged in the complaint do not give rise to any federal cause of action: rather, his claims arise

under state law.1

 Defendant does not, however, address the possibility of diversity jurisdiction

in this case. At the time this action was filed, it appears that the parties were residents of

different states. It also appears, based on plaintiff’s post-complaint filings, that he is seeking

damages in an amount well in excess of $75,000. See, e.g., Dkt. # 56 (claiming lost wages of

approximately $500,000 plus additional damages of over $16 million). Plaintiff has therefore

asserted a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. 

Nevertheless, plaintiff has not suggested or provided evidence in support of any

viable theory that would allow him to proceed with a tort claim against his former employer. 

The Industrial Insurance Act and the administrative procedures set forth by the Department of

Labor and Industries provide an exclusive remedy for injured employees against their employers. 

See Meyer ex. rel. Meyer v. Burger King Corp., 101 Wn. App. 270, 273-74 (2000) (“The

exclusivity of the Act is of the broadest, most encompassing nature. By its express terms, the

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 59 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -3-

Act bars all independent causes of action against the employer for damages arising out of

unintentional injury to an employee.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not

identified an exception to this well-established rule of state law that would apply in this case. 

 

 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff’s claims fail as a

matter of law. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED. The Clerk

of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. 

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 59 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3