Linda Cook v. Ben Hossienzadeh et al.

Cook · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · January 22, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-02013-JHC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denies Plaintiff Linda Cook’s motion for entry of default and motion for judicial notice and a show cause order. The court grants in part and denies in part her motion for a scheduling order, sets briefing deadlines for Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and re-notes that motion for February 19, 2026.

Holdings

  1. Entry of default was inappropriate because Cook failed to specifically show that the defendants were served in a manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, including because at least one named defendant allegedly died before service, and because the defendants had appeared and defended such that resolving the case on the merits remained reasonably possible.
  2. Cook was not entitled to a show cause order, judicial notice, disqualification of defense counsel, or compelled disclosure establishing the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office's authority to appear before representing the named defendants. Washington law permits the county to provide representation and indemnification to qualifying county employees sued in their individual capacities, and Cook identified no authority requiring counsel to prove that authority as a prerequisite to appearing.
  3. Cook's request for a scheduling order concerning the already-briefed motions for default and judicial notice was moot, but the court granted the request in part by setting a briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether entry of default was appropriate when Cook had not specifically shown proper service and the defendants had appeared and defended.
  2. Whether the court should require the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office to disclose documents and demonstrate its authority to represent and indemnify defendants sued in their individual capacities.
  3. Whether Cook was entitled to a scheduling order governing the pending motions and briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Singh, 2025 WL 1672067, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1808692 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2025)(followed)
  • Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943, 954 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Hanson v. Carmona, 1 Wn.3d 362, 384, 525 P.3d 940 (2023)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…