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 – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAMELA BAUGHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING COUNTY and THE CITY OF SEATTLE,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-00584-JCC

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant City of Seattle’s Motion for Summary

Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (Dkt. No. 8). Defendant claims that this

Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, that Defendant was served improperly, and that Plaintiff

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, this Court QUASHES

Plaintiff’s service of process, ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why the claims against Defendant

City of Seattle should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-00584-BHS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 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 ORDER – 2

II. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2) states that a Plaintiff may properly serve a municipal

corporation by serving the summons and complaint to the municipality’s chief executive officer. In the

alternative, Rule 4(j)(2) states that service may be effected in the manner prescribed by the state law in

which the municipality is located. When service is insufficient, Courts have broad discretion to dismiss

the action, or to retain the case but quash service of process. See, e.g., Montalbano v. Easco Hand

Tools, Inc., 766 F.2d 737, 740 (2nd Cir. 1985); Cranford v. U.S., 359 F. Supp. 2d 981, 984 (E.D. Cal.

2005) (mem.). Ordinarily, where there is a reasonable prospect that the plaintiff ultimately will serve

defendant properly, the Court will retain the case but quash service of process. Montalbano, 766 F.2d

at 740. 

Defendant claims that Plaintiff failed to properly serve her Complaint on the Mayor or the City

Clerk’s Office as required by state law. See REV. CODE WASH. 4.28.080(2). Plaintiff responds that she

sent her Complaint to the “Clerk,” but she fails to identify which clerk she served. (Pl.’s Opp’n 1 (Dkt.

No. 11).) The Court therefore quashes Plaintiff’s service on Defendant City of Seattle. Plaintiff must

effectuate proper service on the City of Seattle by October 1, 2006. If there is no proper service by such

time, the claims against Defendant City of Seattle will be dismissed. 

Apart from Defendant’s argument regarding service, Defendant claims that this Court does not

have jurisdiction over the City of Seattle because Plaintiff failed to file a Claim for Damages as a

condition precedent to filing a cause of action against the City of Seattle. Plaintiff discusses several

instances in which she attempted to negotiate with the city, but it is unclear whether she followed the

correct procedure. (See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1); Pl.’s Opp’n.) Because the Court has insufficient

information to determine whether Plaintiff properly exhausted the claims procedure prior to filing suit,

Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by October 1, 2006 why her claims against Defendant City of

Seattle should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

//

Case 2:06-cv-00584-BHS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 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 – 3

The Court cannot reach the merits of the claims against Defendant City of Seattle until it can

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court does not reach Defendant’s

failure-to-state-a-claim argument in support of dismissal, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00584-BHS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3