Erickson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOHN ERICKSON et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01801-LK Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUESTING 12 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

17 (“Chase”) filed a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by collateral estoppel because Plaintiffs have raised the same issues in prior lawsuits and those issues were resolved against Plaintiffs on the merits. Dkt. No. 48 at 1–2, 6–9. That contention, if true, could also bar Plaintiffs’ claims against the other Defendants under the doctrine of non- mutual collateral estoppel. See, e.g., Sahlberg v. P.S.C. Inc., 626 Fed. App'x 719, 721–22 (9th Cir. 2015); LaRoche v. Smith, C15-1003-TSZ, 2016 WL 1221658, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2016).

23 Accordingly, the Court requests that the parties provide supplemental briefing regarding whether the doctrine of non-mutual collateral estoppel bars Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants. Plaintiffs must file a combined brief addressing that issue and responding to Chase’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 48, by January 26, 2024. By February 2, 2024, Chase shall file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss, and all other Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs’ brief on this issue.

5 The Clerk of the Court is directed to renote Chase’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 48, for February 2, 2024.

7 Dated this 12th day of January, 2024.

8 A 9 Lauren King United States District Judge