Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT TACOMA
`
`GARY CASTERLOW-BEY,
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05833-RJB
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO
`DISMISS
`
`AMAZON.COM; GOOGLE.COM;
`INC., BARNES AND NOBLES.COM;
`EBAY.COM; and TRAFFORD
`PUBLISHING COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendant eBay, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
`
`27), Defendant Barnes and Noble, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 29), Defendant Trafford
`
`Publishing Company’s (“Trafford”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30), Defendant Amazon.com Inc.’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 31), and Defendant Google, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 32). The
`
`Court has considered the motions and the remainder of the record herein.
`
`This case arises from the Defendants’ alleged sale of Plaintiff’s books. Dkt. 5.
`
`Defendants now move for dismissal of the claims asserted against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`P. 12. Dkts. 27 and 29-32. For the reasons provided below, their motions should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`A. BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff, at the time a prisoner in the Pierce County, Washington
`
`Jail, filed this case pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and provided a proposed
`
`complaint asserting that the Defendants infringed on the copyrights he has on his books and
`
`violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, (“RICO”).
`
`Dkts. 1 and 5. He also makes reference to fraud. Id. Plaintiff seeks several million dollars in
`
`damages. Id. This is one of several cases the Plaintiff has filed regarding his books. Casterlow-
`
`Bey v. Trafford Publishing Company, Western District of Washington case number 17-5459-
`
`RJB; Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, Inc., Western District of Washington case number 17-5686
`
`RJB Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-5687 RJB;
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`
`case number 17-5834; and Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the
`
`Western District of Washington case number 17-5871.
`
`According to the Complaint in this case, Plaintiff authored three books: Through the
`
`Eyes of a Gangster, Through the Eyes of a Gangster II, and Wildflower – An Urban Tale that
`
`were “published through Trafford.” Dkt. 5, at 4. In this Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that
`
`Trafford “has a forged, fraudulent contract” for Wildflower – An Urban Tale, “signed by some
`
`unknown person, with non-existent address . . . with a phone number Plaintiff has never had.”
`
`Id. He maintains that this “bogus, illegal contract authorizes international sales of all three
`
`books.” Id. The Plaintiff alleges that all of the books’ copyrights belong to him, and the “theft,
`
`unlawful distribution of all three of these copyrighted materials, done nationally and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`internationally by Defendants in a continuous ‘covert operation’ designed to deprive Plaintiff of
`
`the royalties from sales of all three books since 2006.” Id. The Plaintiff alleges that he has
`
`“proof of numerous sales from Defendants’ websites.” Id., at 5.
`
`B. PLAINTIFF’S OTHER CASES RELATED TO THE SALE OF HIS BOOKS
`
`On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff, while a prisoner in the Pierce County, Washington Jail,
`
`proceeding IFP, filed a breach of contract case against Trafford, who he alleges failed to pay him
`
`royalties on the three books that he wrote. Casterlow-Bey v. Trafford Publishing Company,
`
`Western District of Washington case number 17-5459-RJB; Dkt. 7. An Answer to the Complaint
`
`(Dkt. 28) was filed for Trafford, and the parties are engaging in discovery (Dkt. 46).
`
`On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed another case against Defendants Amazon and Google
`
`asserting they committed copyright infringement when Plaintiff’s books were sold on their
`
`website. Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, Inc., Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5686 RJB, Dkt. 1-1. On January 18, 2018, Defendants Amazon and Google’s motions to dismiss
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 were granted and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, Inc., Western District of Washington case number 17-5686 RJB,
`
`Dkt. 27.
`
`On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a case against Ebay.com, asserting that Ebay.com
`
`committed copyright infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when it sold
`
`Plaintiff’s books. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5687 RJB, Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and several million dollars in damages in
`
`that case. Id. Ebay.com moved to dismiss the claims asserted against it, in part, based on
`
`Plaintiff’s failure to show that his books are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office; the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`motion was granted and the case was dismissed with prejudice on January 8, 2018. Casterlow-
`
`Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-5687 RJB, Dkt. 25.
`
`On October 13, 2017, (the same day the instant case was filed) Plaintiff also filed a case
`
`against “Barnes and Nobles,” moved for IFP, and provided a proposed complaint asserting that
`
`Defendant “Barnes and Nobles” committed copyright infringement, breached a contract, and
`
`committed fraud when it sold Plaintiff’s books. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S.
`
`District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5834, Dkts. 1 and 1-1.
`
`Plaintiff also makes reference to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1962, (“RICO”). Id. Plaintiff sought several million dollars in damages. Id. Barnes
`
`and Noble’s motion to dismiss was granted, Plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed and the case
`
`is closed. Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5834, Dkt. 20.
`
`On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court
`
`for the Western District of Washington case number 17-5871, moved for IFP, and provided a
`
`proposed complaint again asserting that Defendant “Barnes and Nobles” committed copyright
`
`infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when it sold Plaintiff’s books.
`
`Casterlow-Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
`
`case number 17-5871, Dkts. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff again made reference to RICO violations. Id.
`
`Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and several million dollars in damages. Id. His motion for IFP
`
`was denied because the case was duplicative of the other cases he had already filed. Casterlow-
`
`Bey v. Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case
`
`number 17-5871, Dkt. 4. After being given an opportunity to pay the filing fee if he wished to
`
`continue with the case, the case was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Casterlow-Bey v.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5871, Dkt. 5.
`
`C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`
`
`Defendant eBay now moves to dismiss the claims asserted against it, arguing that (1)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for the same reasons set forth in this Court’s order
`
`dismissing Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-5687
`
`RJB, Dkts. 21 and 25; (2) Plaintiff has again not sufficiently plead facts to support his RICO and
`
`fraud claims, and so they should be dismissed, and (3) Plaintiff’s RICO claim is preempted by
`
`Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) 47 U.S.C. § 230. Dkt. 27.
`
`Defendants Amazon, Google, Barnes and Noble, and Trafford move to dismiss this case on
`
`the same, or similar, grounds. Dkts. 29-32.
`
`The Court issued a notice to Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, regarding Defendants’ motions to
`
`dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b), and discussed Plaintiff’s obligations, if he intended to
`
`oppose the motions. Dkt. 41.
`
`The pending motions were filed on December 29, 2017 (Dkt. 27) and January 2, 2018
`
`(Dkts. 29-32). Due to Plaintiff being released from jail, he was granted two extensions of time to
`
`respond to the motions to dismiss. Dkts. 41 and 48.
`
`Plaintiff’s responses were due March 12, 2018. Dkt. 48. Plaintiff filed a response on
`
`March 13, 2018, which was not docketed in the file until March 15, 2018. Dkt. 52.
`
`In his response, Plaintiff asserts that he owns copyrights to Through the Eyes of a
`
`Gangster and Through the Eyes of a Gangster II in Canada, maintains that the “Defendants still
`
`make a mockery of this court, the entire criminal justice system, as well as the Plaintiff’s
`
`personal constitutionally guaranteed rights by continuously and in open deviance [sic], continue
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`to traffic in stolen property, i.e. Plaintiff’s copyrighted material.” Dkt. 52, at 1-2. Plaintiff
`
`asserts that the Defendants have used the legal system to evade the “true issue” of whether they
`
`are “involved with national and international sales of Casterlow-Bey books knowingly and
`
`without compensating him in royal [sic] payments.” Dkt. 52, at 3. He requests that the “court
`
`order a trial . . . and prays that legal issues in dispute will be resolved at a jury trial.” Id. He then
`
`files several pages of attachments which appear to be images from internet websites. Dkt. 52, at
`
`5-19.
`
`Defendants filed another round of replies (Dkts. 53-57). The motions are now ripe for
`
`review.
`
`A. PLAINTIFF’S LATE FILED PLEADING
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiff’s response to the motions to dismiss was due on March 12, 2018. In an effort to
`
`fully and fairly consider the issues raised, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s response, which was
`
`filed one day late.
`
`B. MOTION TO DISMISS 12 (b)(1) STANDARD
`
`A complaint must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.12 (b)(1) if, considering the factual
`
`allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the
`
`Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other
`
`enumerated categories of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or
`
`controversy within the meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any
`
`jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962); D.G. Rung Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Tinnerman, 626 F.Supp. 1062, 1063 (W.D. Wash. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal
`
`question jurisdiction) and 1346 (United States as a defendant). When considering a motion to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1), the court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may
`
`review any evidence to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.
`
`McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052
`
`(1989); Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1983). A federal court
`
`is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v.
`
`Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated
`
`Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, plaintiff bears the burden of proving the
`
`existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock West, 873 F.2d at 1225; Thornhill Publishing Co.,
`
`Inc. v. Gen’l Tel & Elect. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
`
`C. COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
`
`Under the Copyright Act, “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United
`
`States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been
`
`made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). “A district court does not have subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over an infringement claim until the Copyright Office grants the registration
`
`application and issues a certificate of registration.” Corbis Corp., v. Amazon. com, Inc., 351
`
`F.Supp.2d 1090, 1112, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1182 (W.D.Wash. 2004); Safeair, Inc. v. Airtran Airways,
`
`Inc., 09-5053RJB, 2009 WL 801754, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2009).
`
`As the undersigned noted in orders dismissing three other cases, Plaintiff does not allege that
`
`he has certificates of registration from the Copyright Office on any of his books in his complaint.
`
`A review of the records of the U.S. Copyright Office shows that only one book, Wildflower, is
`
`registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to Plaintiff Gary Casterlow-Bey; with the registration
`
`number: TXu001644896; date: 07-31-2009. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (b)(2), a
`
`“court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
`
`questioned.” The “court may take judicial notice on its own” . . . but if the “court takes judicial
`
`notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.” Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 201 (c)(1) and (e). “Judicial notice is appropriate for records and reports of
`
`administrative bodies.” United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cty., 547
`
`F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008).
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff makes a claim for copyright infringement against Defendants for
`
`any book other than Wildflower, the claim should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
`
`jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b)(1). Moreover, this is the fourth time Plaintiff has been informed
`
`of this burden, and he has again failed to provide evidence of certificates of registration. Plaintiff
`
`cannot simply rely on his own allegations to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Plaintiff asserts that he has copyrights in Canada on Through the Eyes of a Gangster and
`
`Through the Eyes of a Gangster II. Dkt. 52. “It is well settled that the [U.S.] Copyright Act
`
`does not apply extraterritorially.” Los Angeles News Serv. C. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149
`
`F.3d 987, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff makes no showing that he can assert a claim to
`
`enforce an extraterritorial copyright under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, or some
`
`other U.S. statute. He makes no showing that this Court has jurisdiction over such a claim.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement against Defendants for Through the Eyes of a
`
`Gangster and Through the Eyes of a Gangster II should be dismissed.
`
`D. MOTION TO DISMISS 12 (b)(6) STANDARD
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a cognizable
`
`legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken
`
`as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d
`
`1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss does
`
`not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
`
`entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
`
`elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55
`
`(2007) (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
`
`above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
`
`(even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555. The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim
`
`to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 547.
`
`E. COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`Under the Copyright Act, copyright owners have the exclusive right to do or authorize the
`
`following:
`
`(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
`(2) to prepare derivative works based upon copyrighted work;
`(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by
`sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
`(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
`pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
`copyrighted work publically;
`(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
`pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
`individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the
`copyrighted work publicly; and
`(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by
`means of a digital audio transmission.
`
`
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106. “Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct
`
`infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must
`
`demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159 (9th
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`To the extent he makes them, Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement against all
`
`Defendants should also be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
`
`Aside from failing to establish that he is a copyright holder for any book other than Wildflower,
`
`Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts that any Defendant violated at least one of the rights
`
`granted under § 106. He does not give any details – only non-specific allegations that the
`
`Defendants sold his books.
`
`Again, the “Copyright Act does not apply extraterritorially.” Los Angeles News Serv. C.
`
`Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s assertions that
`
`Through the Eyes of a Gangster and Through the Eyes of a Gangster II have copyrights in
`
`Canada (Dkt. 52) are unhelpful. To the extent Plaintiff asserts copyright claims for violations
`
`outside the United States, on any of his books, his claims should be dismissed.
`
`F. RICO – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`To state a claim for a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff allege that the defendant engaged in: “(1)
`
`conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity and, additionally,
`
`must establish that (5) the defendant caused injury to plaintiff's business or property.” Chaset v.
`
`Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2002)(citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c),
`
`1964(c)).
`
`Plaintiff’s RICO claim should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
`
`Plaintiff fails to identify any RICO predicate acts, but just incorporates his prior allegations.
`
`Such “shotgun” pleading is insufficient to plead a RICO claim. See Graf v. Peoples, 2008 WL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`4189657, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008). Defendants’ motions should be granted and the RICO
`
`claims dismissed.
`
`G. FRAUD – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`Under Washington law, there are nine essential elements of fraud:
`
`(1) a representation of existing fact, (2) its materiality, (3) its falsity, (4) the
`speaker's knowledge of its falsity, (5) the speaker's intent that it be acted upon by
`the person to whom it is made, (6) ignorance of its falsity on the part of the person
`to whom the representation is addressed, (7) the latter's reliance on the truth of the
`representation, (8) the right to rely upon it, and (9) consequent damage.
`
`
`Elcon Const., Inc. v. E. Washington Univ., 174 Wn.2d 157, 166 (2012). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 (b),
`
`Pleading Special Matters, provides, in part, “Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging
`
`fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
`
`mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged
`
`generally.”
`
`To the extent Plaintiff asserts claims for fraud, they should be dismissed for failure to state a
`
`claim and for failure to plead fraud with particularity. Plaintiff fails to plead any facts which
`
`would support his claim of fraud against any of the Defendants and certainly does not do so with
`
`particularity. Plaintiff’s bare assertion that they committed “fraud,” is insufficient; he doesn’t
`
`plead any of the nine elements of the claim based on Amazon’s, Google’s, Barnes and Noble’s,
`
`eBay’s, or Trafford’s actions. Their motions to dismiss the fraud claim should be granted.
`
`H. LEAVE TO AMEND AND CONCLUSION
`
`Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect, a pro se litigant is
`
`entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal
`
`of the action. See Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`At this stage, it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defects in Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. In two other cases, Plaintiff was notified of the deficiencies in the complaints (which
`
`are the same deficiencies here against some of the same Defendants here) and given leave to
`
`amend. Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-5687 RJB,
`
`Dkts. 21 and 25; and Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, Inc., Western District of Washington case
`
`number 17-5686 RJB, Dkts. 25 and 27. He did not do so in either case, and so the cases were
`
`dismissed with prejudice. Id. Further, Plaintiff did not respond to Barnes and Noble’s motion to
`
`dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement and RICO violations in Casterlow-Bey v.
`
`Barnes and Nobles, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5834. (The grounds for the motion to dismiss there were the same or similar to the issues raised
`
`in this case and in Casterlow-Bey v. Ebay.com, Western District of Washington case number 17-
`
`5687 RJB, Dkts. 21 and 25; and Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, Inc., Western District of
`
`Washington case number 17-5686 RJB.) Accordingly, case number 17-5834 was dismissed with
`
`prejudice. Defendants have filed separate replies in this case each time the motions to dismiss
`
`were ripe for review or where, due to Plaintiff’s late filings, Defendants assumed Plaintiff was
`
`not going to respond. Dkts. 44-47; 49-51 and 53-57. Plaintiff has been given multiple warnings
`
`and has failed to address the basic deficiencies in any of his complaints, including the one filed
`
`in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff should not be given leave to amend. The claims should be
`
`dismissed with prejudice and the case closed.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`It is ORDERED that:
`
`• Defendant eBay, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 27), Defendant Barnes and
`
`Noble, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 29), Defendant Trafford Publishing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05833-RJB Document 58 Filed 03/19/18 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30), Defendant Amazon.com Inc.’s Motion
`
`to Dismiss (Dkt. 31), and Defendant Google, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 32)
`
`ARE GRANTED;
`
`• Plaintiff’s claims ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
`
`• This case IS CLOSED.
`
`The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party
`
`appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
`
`Dated this 19th day of March, 2018.
`
` A
`ROBERT J. BRYAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Judge
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS- 13
`
`