Susan Chen v. Darren Migita, et al.

Under Due process, adequate notice must be given to the affected parties. The current petition and the underlying four-years' appellate litigation are results of Washington courts’ refusal to clarify an ambiguous order about whether minor, J.L. was bound to the dismissal order or whether the dismissal to the minor was without prejudice. Petitioner pro se filed a lawsuit, mistakenly added J.L.’s name but quickly informed the court that she cannot represent minor in court as non-attorney. A Washington state court judge dismissed the action upon Defendants’ pre-discovery motion for summary judgment announcing the lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants due to the plaintiffs’ defective service. The order was silent as to whether it was with or without prejudice as to the unrepresented minor plaintiffs (“2017 Order”). The Chief Judge expressed his intent to vacate the ambiguous order, reasoning that a dismissal without prejudice was the limit that a court lacking jurisdiction could act and that parties are entitled to a clear judgment (“2019 Intent”) - the Order has not yet been formally entered. Defendants appealed the court’s intent. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Chief Judge abuses the discretion to resolve the jurisdictional challenge, opined that the Court has no obligation to first determine whether or not it has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals disagreed with chief judge and ordered the indigent Petitioner (Respondent on appeal) to pay appellate