opma claim in Washington

2021These are largely legal matters and are therefore reviewed de novo. 7 No. 36994-3-III Zink v. City of Mesa The May 8, 2003, proceedings constituted a “meeting” One of the elements 2 of an OPMA claim is proof a governing body conducted a “meeting.” See Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wn.

2021These are largely legal matters and are therefore reviewed de novo. 7 No. 36994-3-III Zink v. City of Mesa The May 8, 2003, proceedings constituted a “meeting” One of the elements 2 of an OPMA claim is proof a governing body conducted a “meeting.” See Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wn.

2014App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 (2002), Division Three citedWood in stating that "[to] defeat summary judgment dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a 'member' ofa governing body (2) attended a 'meeting' of that body (3) where 'action' was taken in violation ofthe OPMA, and (4) that the member had 'knowledge' thatthe meeting violated OPMA." Wood. 107 Wn.

2014App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 (2002), Division Three citedWood in stating that "[to] defeat summary judgment dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a 'member' ofa governing body (2) attended a 'meeting' of that body (3) where 'action' was taken in violation ofthe OPMA, and (4) that the member had 'knowledge' thatthe meeting violated OPMA." Wood. 107 Wn.

2025Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wn.

2025Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wn.

2002To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing “(1) that a ‘member’ of a governing body (2) attended a ‘meeting’ of that body (3) where ‘action’ was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had ‘knowledge’ that the meeting violated the OPMA.” Wood, 107 Wn.

2002To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing “(1) that a ‘member’ of a governing body (2) attended a ‘meeting’ of that body (3) where ‘action’ was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had ‘knowledge’ that the meeting violated the OPMA.” Wood, 107 Wn.

2017Under RCW 42.30.130, “[a]ny person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.” ¶6 Our Supreme Court addressed standing for an OPMA claim to void an agency action in Kirk v. Pierce County Fire Protection District No. 21, 95 Wn.2d 769 , 630 P.2d 930 (1981).

2017Under RCW 42.30.130, “[a]ny person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.” ¶6 Our Supreme Court addressed standing for an OPMA claim to void an agency action in Kirk v. Pierce County Fire Protection District No. 21, 95 Wn.2d 769 , 630 P.2d 930 (1981).

2011Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, 166 Wash.2d 510, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 (2009) (citing Troxell v. Rainier Pub.

2011Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, 166 Wash.2d 510, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 (2009) (citing Troxell v. Rainier Pub.

2011Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, 166 Wash.2d 510, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 (2009) (citing Troxell v. Rainier Pub.

2011Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, 166 Wash.2d 510, 517 , 210 P.3d 318 (2009) (citing Troxell v. Rainier Pub.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2020Tateuchi does not appeal the dismissal of those claims. 7 The court later amended the order granting the City’s motion to dismiss the OPMA claim pursuant to only CR 12(b)(6). 5 No. 80712-9-I/6 “Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the six standards listed in RCW 36.70C.130(1) has been met.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000).

2020Tateuchi does not appeal the dismissal of those claims. 7 The court later amended the order granting the City’s motion to dismiss the OPMA claim pursuant to only CR 12(b)(6). 5 No. 80712-9-I/6 “Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the six standards listed in RCW 36.70C.130(1) has been met.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000).

2020Tateuchi does not appeal the dismissal of those claims. 7 The court later amended the order granting the City’s motion to dismiss the OPMA claim pursuant to only CR 12(b)(6). 5 No. 80712-9-I/6 “Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the six standards listed in RCW 36.70C.130(1) has been met.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000).

2020Tateuchi does not appeal the dismissal of those claims. 7 The court later amended the order granting the City’s motion to dismiss the OPMA claim pursuant to only CR 12(b)(6). 5 No. 80712-9-I/6 “Under LUPA a court may grant relief from a local land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the six standards listed in RCW 36.70C.130(1) has been met.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000).

2017West, 194 Wn.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014App. 62, 69 , 11 P.3d 833 (2000). 11 Schoeman v. New York Life Ins.

2014App. 62, 69 , 11 P.3d 833 (2000). 11 Schoeman v. New York Life Ins.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014App. at 225 (citing Miller, 138 Wn.2d at 330-31 ). -13- NO. 70321-8-1/14 is subject to the OPMA, committed an OPMA violation regardless of the intent of individual council members or agents." To determine if two causes of action are similar, the court considers (1) if prosecuting the second action would destroy or impair rights or interests in the prior judgment, (2) if the two actions involve the same evidence, (3) if the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) ifthe two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.26 When the trial court ruled that the second

2014App. at 225 (citing Miller, 138 Wn.2d at 330-31 ). -13- NO. 70321-8-1/14 is subject to the OPMA, committed an OPMA violation regardless of the intent of individual council members or agents." To determine if two causes of action are similar, the court considers (1) if prosecuting the second action would destroy or impair rights or interests in the prior judgment, (2) if the two actions involve the same evidence, (3) if the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) ifthe two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.26 When the trial court ruled that the second

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014In arguing that "[a] recall petition is not an adjudication on the merits," Block states, "A court does not determine whether the charges in a recall petition are true." In In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek,27 our Supreme Court held that a 26 Rains. 100 Wn.2d at 664 (citing Constantini v. Trans World Airlines. 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27129 Wn.2d 399 , 402, 918 P.2d 493 (1996).

2014In arguing that "[a] recall petition is not an adjudication on the merits," Block states, "A court does not determine whether the charges in a recall petition are true." In In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek,27 our Supreme Court held that a 26 Rains. 100 Wn.2d at 664 (citing Constantini v. Trans World Airlines. 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27129 Wn.2d 399 , 402, 918 P.2d 493 (1996).

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014We also need not reach CRC's claim that the OPMA claim "is clearly substantive in nature and cannot be defeated by the BFP defense." Br. of Appellant at 33. -16- 71734-1-1/17 State, 130 Wn.2d 782, 797 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996) (quoting Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree, 88 Wn.2d 93, 98 , 558 P.2d 211 (1977)). "["TJhe Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed the application of this prohibition in order to more precisely conform to 'the evils the framers sought to prevent.'" Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 70 Wn.

2014In arguing that "[a] recall petition is not an adjudication on the merits," Block states, "A court does not determine whether the charges in a recall petition are true." In In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek,27 our Supreme Court held that a 26 Rains. 100 Wn.2d at 664 (citing Constantini v. Trans World Airlines. 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27129 Wn.2d 399 , 402, 918 P.2d 493 (1996).

2014In arguing that "[a] recall petition is not an adjudication on the merits," Block states, "A court does not determine whether the charges in a recall petition are true." In In re Recall of Pearsall-Stipek,27 our Supreme Court held that a 26 Rains. 100 Wn.2d at 664 (citing Constantini v. Trans World Airlines. 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27129 Wn.2d 399 , 402, 918 P.2d 493 (1996).

2014App. 491, 507 , 857 P.2d 283 (1993) (quoting Taxpayers of Tacoma, 108 Wn.2d at 702 ).

2014App. 491, 507 , 857 P.2d 283 (1993) (quoting Taxpayers of Tacoma, 108 Wn.2d at 702 ).

2014Block first claims that collateral estoppel and res judicata do not bar her OPMA claim because "[a] decision in a recall petition that allegations are not sufficient for a recall from office does not automatically determine whether or not an OPMA violation has occurred by the entities of which the official was a member." Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits relitigating claims and issues that were litigated, or might have been litigated, in a prior action.10 It generally applies where the subsequent action is identical with a prior action in four respects: (1) persons and parties, (2)

2014Block first claims that collateral estoppel and res judicata do not bar her OPMA claim because "[a] decision in a recall petition that allegations are not sufficient for a recall from office does not automatically determine whether or not an OPMA violation has occurred by the entities of which the official was a member." Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits relitigating claims and issues that were litigated, or might have been litigated, in a prior action.10 It generally applies where the subsequent action is identical with a prior action in four respects: (1) persons and parties, (2)

2014App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 (2002), Division Three citedWood in stating that "[to] defeat summary judgment dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a 'member' ofa governing body (2) attended a 'meeting' of that body (3) where 'action' was taken in violation ofthe OPMA, and (4) that the member had 'knowledge' thatthe meeting violated OPMA." Wood. 107 Wn.

2014App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 (2002), Division Three citedWood in stating that "[to] defeat summary judgment dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a 'member' ofa governing body (2) attended a 'meeting' of that body (3) where 'action' was taken in violation ofthe OPMA, and (4) that the member had 'knowledge' thatthe meeting violated OPMA." Wood. 107 Wn.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2011Eugster v. City of Spokane, 128 Wash.App. 1, 7 , 114 P.3d 1200 (2005) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1014 , 132 P.3d 146 (2006); Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now, 119 Wash.App. 665, 700-01 , 82 P.3d 1199 , review denied, 152 Wash.2d 1023 , 101 P.3d 107 (2004). [6] We note, however, that the Telford test is fact-based—dependent on the governmental function, funding, and control of the entity as a whole— not activity-based.

2004Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wash.App. 383, 424 , 76 P.3d 741 (2003) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)).

2004Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wash.App. 383, 424 , 76 P.3d 741 (2003) (citing Eugster v. City of Spokane, 110 Wash.App. 212, 222 , 39 P.3d 380 , review denied, 147 Wash.2d 1021 , 60 P.3d 92 (2002)).

2002To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a `member' of a governing body (2) attended a `meeting' of that body (3) where `action' was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had `knowledge' that the meeting violated the OPMA." Wood, 107 Wash.App. at 558 , 27 P.3d 1208 .

2002To defeat summary dismissal of an OPMA claim, the plaintiff must submit evidence showing "(1) that a `member' of a governing body (2) attended a `meeting' of that body (3) where `action' was taken in violation of the OPMA, and (4) that the member had `knowledge' that the meeting violated the OPMA." Wood, 107 Wash.App. at 558 , 27 P.3d 1208 .