Some articles are in PDF format. If you can't view them, you can get Adobe's Acrobat Reader for FREE from Adobe's site.
Links may open in a new browser window.
AMANDA G. BUTLER:
Amanda Butler recently obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims against the City of Puyallup and the Puyallup Police Department in a lawsuit involving claims of negligent investigation and supervision.
Amanda also obtained complete dismissal of all claims on summary judgment for the City of Lake Stevens in a lawsuit involving claims of false arrest and use of excessive force against the Lake Stevens Police Department.
STEW ESTES:
Stew was admitted to the prestigious Washington Appellate Lawyers Association.
Stew presented at the WCIA Police Command Staff Seminar on the issue of Crisis Intervention Team Training - Dealing with the Mentally Ill. For the past year, Stew has been working to implement statewide training for police officers in this area. He currently serves on the Governor’s CIT Training Steering Committee, which is creating a pilot program to commence this fall.
SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE CASE DECIDED.
Fisk v. City Of Kirkland, 164 Wn.2d 891, 194 P.3d 984 (2008) (PDF). The Washington Supreme Court held that “Water provided by a municipal water company for fire suppression as a public service is not part of a water system for hire.” The case involved a claim of negligence against the City of Kirkland for not providing adequate water pressure to allow its fire department to extinguish an RV fire. The Court applied the public duty doctrine in concluding that the city owed no duty to the plaintiffs. This case was in follow up to Stew’s Court of Appeals victory two years prior in Stiefel v City of Kent (PDF), 132 Wn. App. 523; 132 P.3d 1111 (2005).
That case dealt with a situation where the plaintiffs' home burned because the fire department's city-maintained water supply failed, allegedly due to rust deposits in a water main that the city had failed to "flush." Plaintiffs relied on a number of cases that hold that a city's operation of a water system is a proprietary function that renders the city liable for negligence. Stew was able to convince the court that even though the water system was proprietary, the water was actually being used at the time in a governmental function -- fire fighting. Thus, the public duty doctrine shielded the city, even though the exact acts of negligence would render the city liable if the same water was used in a different way. The court held:
"The general rule is that supplying water for public purposes, such as fire protection services, is a governmental function and that a municipality is not liable for damages for the negligent failure to supply water for extinguishing fires.* * * Because their claims are directed solely to the governmental function of fire protection services, including the incidental delivery of water through fire hydrants, the claims are barred by the public duty doctrine." Id. at 530.
JAYNE FREEMAN:
In October 2009, Ms. Freeman obtained her third employment discrimination defense jury verdict in the past year. In Bonilla v. University of Washington, a former employee of the UWMedical Center alleged she was terminated in retaliation for taking intermittent FMLA leave. Following a 5-day jury trial, a King County jury disagreed that FMLA leave was a negative factor in the termination decision and entered a unanimous verdict for the defense
In June 2009, the jury in Prue v. University of Washington entered a defense verdict following a 5-day jury trial by Ms. Freeman in federal court in Seattle. Despite the Plaintiff’s allegations of race/age discrimination and retaliation, and a “probable cause” determination by the EEOC, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.
RICHARD JOLLEY:
Brutsche v. Port of Seattle et al;- a defense verdict in a federal court jury trial stemming from the execution of a search warrant by a multi-jurisdictional SWAT team.
Dickinson v. City of Kent et al-defense verdict in a federal court jury trial on behalf of several individual officers and the city of Kent. The Plaintiff alleged that a k-9 application, which ultimately cost him his leg, was an unconstitutional use of force.
Pruitt v. City of Arlington et al- a defense verdict in a federal court jury trial on behalf of the city of Arlington and an individual police officer. Plaintiff alleged that her arrest constituted a violation of her 4th amendment rights as well as a false arrest and malicious prosecution.
Evans v. City of Kirkland- termination of a city police officer for misuse of confidential databases upheld during grievance arbitration challenging termination for cause.
RICHARD JOLLEY & JEREMY CULUMBER:
Richard Jolley and Jeremy Culumber successfully represented an Arlington police officer and the city of Arlington in a jury trial in federal court. Plaintiff and her husband, a police officer, claimed that she had been falsely arrested and that the city violated her constitutional rights by ratifying the officer's unlawful conduct. Following a four day jury trial in federal court, the jury returned with a defense verdict.
MIKE WALTER & JEREMY CULUMBER:
Won a significant land use case in Division II of the State Court of Appeals. In the case of Fame Developers, Ltd. and William and Penelope Hulett v. City of Bainbridge Island, Court of Appeals No. 36801-3-II, the State Court of Appeals upheld a summary judgment order by the Kitsap County Superior Court dismissing in its entirety a lawsuit brought by the Huletts, sole shareholders of Fame Developers, Ltd., who own two properties on Bainbridge Island. In 1997, severe landslides caused damage to a public road north of the Huletts’ properties, preventing access to their properties. The City decided not to restore the road, and the Huletts filed various damages and takings claims contending that the City had a legal obligation to open and clear the road and that the City owed the Huletts substantial damages and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals upheld in its entirety the trial court’s dismissal of the case, finding that the Huletts failed to produce evidence to create a question of material fact and that the Huletts had no right of access to the public road. The case was decided on January 26, 2010 and is an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division II. Congratulations to Mike and Jeremy!
MIKE WALTER:
Mike Walter in association with other outside counsel on behalf of the City of Bainbridge Island won a significant victory in Division II of the Court of Appeals in the case of Nickum, et al. v. City of Bainbridge Island, et al., COA No. 38217-2-II. The Nickums, and other property owners, filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) action challenging a City of Bainbridge Island decision to allow Verizon Wireless LLC to construct a wireless communication facility on a neighbor’s property. Before filing their LUPA action, the Nickums filed an administrative appeal with the City’s Hearing Examiner, which rejected their appeal on jurisdictional grounds because it was not filed within 14 days of the City’s initial decision to allow construction of the communications facility. On summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the Nickum’s LUPA action for lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and rejected all of the Nickum’s various equitable and procedural arguments. The Court also rejected the Nickum’s due process claims, and awarded attorney’s fees to both the City and Verizon Wireless. Congratulations to Mike.
MIKE WALTER:
Mike was successful in having substantive due process and civil rights damages claims dismissed in a “tent city” lawsuit brought by a group of neighbors challenging a tent city encampment in the City of Mercer Island. In the case of Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. City of Mercer Island, et al., King County Cause No. 08-2-23083-0 SEA, the Citizens Group, comprised of various owners of property surrounding the Mercer Island United Methodist Church, sued the City, primarily, as well as the church and Share/Wheel and Tent City 4, claiming that the Mercer Island City Council’s authorization and approval of a special use permit to allow the Tent City 4 homeless encampment was illegal, unconstitutional and a violation of substantive due process. The Citizens Group sought monetary damages and attorneys’ fees for what it contended was an unlawful approval of the Tent City 4 encampment, which has since left the church property. On April 24, 2009, the Honorable Michael Fox of the King County Superior Court granted summary judgment to the City of Mercer Island and denied the Citizens Group’s own cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. Judge Fox found and concluded that the Citizens Group’s claims were barred due to the Group’s failure to seek relief pursuant to the State Land Use Petition Act, and that notwithstanding the preclusive effect under that Act, the Group’s claims were not cognizable. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
This case is currently on appeal in Division I of the State Court of Appeals (under Court of Appeals Cause No. 63504-2-I, and is awaiting oral argument). Congratulations to Mike for a good win.
