1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
9
10
JASON KOETTING, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01854
11
Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING
12 v. COMPLAINT
13 DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC,
14 Defendant.
15
16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Jason Koetting has filed a putative
17 class action complaint against Doubledown Interactive LLC, alleging that it violated certain
18 gambling laws in Washington and Utah. Dkt. No. 1.
19 Although Koetting avers that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under
20 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), his allegations regarding the parties’ citizenship and the amount in controversy
21 are merely conclusory. Id. at 3. He alleges that “at least one Class Member is a citizen of a state
22 different from [Doubledown]” without identifying Doubledown’s citizenship. Id.; see also 28
23 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10). Similarly, he asserts that “the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
24 $5,000,000” without explaining how. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. “Failure to make proper and complete
1 allegations of diversity jurisdiction relegates a litigant to . . . jurisdictional purgatory[.]” Fifty
2 Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). And as with diversity,
3 “[c]onclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are insufficient.” Corral v. Select
4 Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 774 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
5 When subject matter jurisdiction is absent, courts “must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ.
6 P. 12(h)(3). The Court accordingly DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice and with leave
7 to amend. Should Koetting choose to amend his complaint, he must do so by November 12, 2025.
8 Dated this 29th day of October, 2025.
9 A
10 Lauren King
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.