Phillips v. Seattle Times Co., Case No. C11–561RSM.

• Decision Date: 05 October 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. C11–561RSM.
• Citation: 818 F.Supp.2d 1277,40 Media L. Rep. 1034
• Parties: Chris PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. The SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

40 Media L. Rep. 1034

818 F.Supp.2d 1277

Chris PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,

v.The SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. C11–561RSM.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington,at Seattle.

Oct. 5, 2011.

Chris Phillips, pro se.

Bruce EH Johnson, Sarah Kathleen Duran, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of defendant The Seattle Times Company's (“Seattle Times”) motion to dismiss and motion pursuant to RCW 4.24.525 to strike claims. Dkt. # 7. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss shall be granted, and the motion to strike shall be denied as moot.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Chris Phillips, appearing pro se, filed this complaint for defamation and other torts pursuant to the diversity jurisdiction of this Court, asserting that he is a resident of Nova Scotia, Canada, or Massachusetts, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 4, ¶¶ 2, 4. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) or (2). This is one of nine such complaints filed by plaintiff regarding events that occurred in March and April, 2008, when plaintiff resided in Washington State.¹

The complaint alleges that plaintiff, who has both medical (M.D.) and legal (J.D.) degrees, was “a respected LASIK surgeon and ophthalmologist” who practiced medicine in Renton, Washington. Amended Complaint, ¶ 9. He was the owner of, and employed by, Seattle Eye Surgeons, doing business as Lomas LASIK and Eye Care Center. Id., ¶ 10. According to the complaint, on February 29, 2008, plaintiff “temporarily closed Lomas LASIK and Eye Care Center to remodel and restructure the business,” and laid off several employees. Id., ¶¶ 18, 19. Shortly after the closure, defendant “negligently began publishing numerous false statements” regarding plaintiff's decision to temporarily close the practice. Id., ¶ 20. These statements, according to plaintiff, included allegations that plaintiff had disappeared, vanished, was missing, and “unexpectedly left town.” Id., ¶¶ 24–28. Plaintiff alleges that he had previously informed defendant that he was in the hospital.² Id., ¶ 21. He subsequently informed defendant again of his hospitalization, as did previous employees. ¶¶ 29–32. Nevertheless, according to plaintiff, this defendant “knowingly continued publishing the above false allegations.” Id., ¶ 33. As a result, plaintiff's reputation was damaged, his business was destroyed, and he had to declare bankruptcy, filing for personal bankruptcy on July 2, 2008. Id., ¶¶ 61–62.

On these and other factual allegations, including an allegation that plaintiff was stabbed near his home sometime in April, 2009 as a result of the media coverage of his actions, plaintiff asserts various tort claims against the Seattle Times. The causes of action asserted are intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts I and II), defamation and defamation per se (Counts III and IV), intentional interference with contractual relations (Count V), interference with a prospective advantage (Count VI), publication in a false light (Count VII) and civil harassment (Count VIII). Defendant has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint and all counts therein for failure to state a claim. Defendant has also moved pursuant to RCW 4.24.525, Washington's “anti-SLAPP” law ³, to strike all claims and to recover the statutory penalty of $10,000. Dkt. # 7.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on June 9, 2011, and properly noted under the Court's local rules for hearing on the fourth Friday thereafter, July 1, 2011. Plaintiff's response was due June 27, 2011. Local Rule CR 7(d)(3). On June 20, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond, contending that he had motion responses due in four of his pending cases all on the same day, July 1; that he was working on a brief related to a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in a separate case; that he had to travel to Boston, Seattle, and Oklahoma over the next seven days; and that he was exhausted from all the work. Dkt. # 8. Defendant, in response, re-noted the motion to dismiss to July 15, 2011, and filed a statement that it did not oppose plaintiff's motion. Dkt. # 11, 14. Defendant then re-noted the motion again, to July 22, 2011. Dkt. # 15. The Court acknowledged this and advised plaintiff that his opposition to the motion to dismiss and motion to strike was due July 18, 2011. Dkt. # 16.

On July 18, plaintiff filed a handwritten motion for a stay of proceedings, sent from the Renton city jail, where he was in custody. Dkt. # 17. He followed up with a legible typed version on July 26, 2011 after he was released. Dkt. # 18. In his motion for a stay of proceedings (construed by the Court as a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, and noted for July 29, 2011), plaintiff explained that he traveled to Seattle on July 12, 2011 to appear in Renton Municipal Court, and was taken into custody. As plaintiff explains, “[o]n or about February 2, 2009 Phillips was sentenced by ... Renton Municipal Court for providing alcohol to minors, breach of peace, and making a false statement.” Dkt. # 18, p. 2. He further explains that his sentence was stayed pending his appeal to King County Superior Court, and that upon denial of his appeal he was required to register with Electronic Home Detention. Apparently the Renton Municipal Court had no record that plaintiff registered as required, and ordered him to appear in person on July 12, 2011. Id., p. 4. Plaintiff traveled from his home in Nova Scotia, Canada to appear, and was taken into custody on that day.

Plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings challenged his underlying conviction and also indicated that he was surprised by his detention, so he could not possibly have filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss in anticipation. He asked this Court not only to excuse the time that he was in custody, but also allow time for a family trip to Poland, from which he would return on August 15, 2011, and additional time to “repair his relationship with his family,” as well as complete discovery responses in another case, and complete his forty hours of community service as ordered by the Renton Municipal Court. Id., pp. 6–7. He asked that the motion to dismiss be re-noted to the middle of September 2011. Id., p. 6. He filed this same request in several of his other pending cases.

The Seattle Times timely opposed the motion for a stay of proceedings/extension of time. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiff then filed an untimely motion to extend the time to file his reply on his pending motion to stay proceedings, complaining that defendants in six of his pending cases had filed opposition briefs on the same day, giving him only two days to work on all six replies. Dkt. # 22. Plaintiff asserted that he was “overwhelmed” by the demands of his litigation (all of which he initiated), and that during the two days he was allowed for filing his numerous replies, he also had to fly from Seattle to Boston, drive to Halifax, pack for his trip, and board a flight from Halifax to Europe. Id., p. 2. He stated that he attempted to work on his legal matters on the flight from Seattle to Boston but his laptop ran out of power. Id. Upon arrival in Boston, he had to sleep before driving to Halifax, and then experienced “minor car problems” on the drive, causing further delay. Id. Plaintiff's reply on his motion to stay proceedings was then filed on August 2, 2011. Dkt. # 22. The Court, despite defendant's objections, considered it. See, Order on Pending Motions, Dkt. # 27, p. 2.

In ruling on plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings, the Court noted that the situation of which he complained was largely of his own making, as half the motions originally noted for July 1, 2011 were plaintiff's own. Id., p. 3. Three others, namely three motions to dismiss, were re-noted to July 22, 2011. Id. The timing of these motions to dismiss was driven by the dates on which plaintiff filed his complaints, and thus was a matter within plaintiff's control. Id. It was also plaintiff's choice to schedule a family trip to Europe during this period of time.

The Court accordingly granted plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings only in part, renoting the Seattle Times' motion to dismiss to August 26, 2011. Dkt. # 27. The Court directed that plaintiff's response was due August 22, 2011, and stated clearly and unequivocally that “[n]o further extensions shall be granted to plaintiff.” Id., p. 4. This Order was filed on August 12, 2011, giving plaintiff notice that he had ten additional days to respond to the motion which had been filed more than two months earlier. The same Order was filed in two other cases with pending motions to dismiss, in which plaintiff had filed the identical motion to stay proceedings.

Plaintiff failed to file his opposition to the Seattle Times' motion to dismiss on August 22, 2011, as ordered. Nor did he file it on August 23 or August 24. It was not until August 25, 2011, that plaintiff filed his opposition in two separate documents, which exceeded the allowable page limits set forth in Local Rule CR 7(e). Dkt. 28, 29. The first of the two, which contained both a response to defendant's RCW 4.24.535 special motion to strike, and a motion for a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the statute, ran to sixteen pages. Dkt. # 28. The second response, which opposed the motion to dismiss, contained thirty-two pages. Dkt. # 29. Plaintiff attempted to justify the excess pages by stating on each response that an identical copy was being filed in each of the three cases in which he had pending motions to dismiss. That is so, however, in none of the three cases did plaintiff seek permission to file an overlength brief as required. L...