Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.105
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (2026)

Dismissal of cause of action in whole or part

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In ruling on a motion under RCW 4.105.020, the court shall dismiss with prejudice a cause of action, or part of a cause of action, if:
(a) The moving party establishes under RCW 4.105.010(2) that this chapter applies;
(b) The responding party fails to establish under RCW 4.105.010(3) that this chapter does not apply; and
(c) Either:
(i) The responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or
(ii) The moving party establishes that:
(A) The responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted; or
(B) There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action or part of the cause of action.
(2) A voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a responding party's cause of action, or part of a cause of action, that is the subject of a motion under RCW 4.105.020 does not affect a moving party's right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses under RCW 4.105.090.
(3) A voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a responding party's cause of action, or part of a cause of action, that is the subject of a motion under RCW 4.105.020 establishes for the purpose of RCW 4.105.090 that the moving party prevailed on the motion.
[ 2021 c 259 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2022–2026 · leading case: Thurman v. Cowles Co., 562 P.3d 777 (Wash. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thurman v. Cowles Co., 562 P.3d 777 (Wash. 2025). “RCW 4.105.060. A moving party may appeal as a matter of right from an order denying a motion under RCW 4.”
Valve Corp., V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “” RCW 4.105.060(1). We review the denial of a UPEPA motion to dismiss de novo.”
TorchStar Corp v. Hyatech Inc (E.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 5× “010(3)(a)(iii) 7 Section 4.105.060 provides the standards for ruling on a special motion to 8 dismiss.”
Micahn T. Carter v. Mary E. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “RCW 4.105.060(1). If the moving party prevails on the UPEPA motion, the trial court must award the party its costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses.”
Law Off. Of John Randolph, Pllc V. Ewu Media Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× ““In assessing whether the trial court erred by denying [EWU Media’s] UPEPA motion, we engage in the three- step analysis dictated by RCW 4.105.060(1).” Id. at 388 . First, it is the moving party’s burden to establish that the UPEPA applies to the cause of action.”
Montano v. State of Washington Dep't of Health (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 4× “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (1)). 10 a. Matter of Public Concern 11 KREM-2 News Defendants argue their reporting in this case was on a matter of 12 significant public concern, namely public health and Plaintiff’s patients’ potential exposure to 13 serious infectious…”
Button (W.D. Wash. 2026). · cites it 4× “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (1)). 24 1 “Although UPEPA is a creature of Washington law, it can nonetheless be applied by 2 federal courts.”
Jeffrey Thurman v. Cowles Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “Rather, it provides an expedited process for dismissing that and other causes of action if three conditions are met, including that the cause of action is subject to dismissal under the standards of CR 12(b)(6) or CR 56.”
Dimension Townhouses, Llc., V. Leganieds, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “And third, if the responding party does not demonstrate that an exception applies, the trial court must dismiss the action if either: (i) The responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or (ii) The moving party…”
Proj. Veritas v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “2 RCW 4.105.060. 18 19 2 Under RCW 4.105.060, the third prong can be met via three options: (1) the responding party fails to 20 establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action, (2) the moving party establishes that the responding party failed to…”
Ligeri v. Parker (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 3× “CODE § 4.105.060(1). 18 For the following reasons, the Court finds that the requirements for dismissal of Ligeri’s 19 claims under UPEPA and/or Rule 12(b)(6) are satisfied here.”
Leader Capital Corp v. FNEX Capital LLC et al. (W.D. Wash. 2026). · cites it 3× “59 6 (citing RCW 4.105.060). 7 The issues are addressed in turn.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1) — 5 cases
Kurt Benshoof, V. Nathan Cliber (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Micahn T. Carter v. Mary E. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 4.105.060(1). If the moving party prevails on the UPEPA motion, the trial court must award the party its costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses.”
Valve Corp., V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 4.105.060(1). We review the denial of a UPEPA motion to dismiss de novo.”
Ligeri v. Parker (W.D. Wash. 2025). “CODE § 4.105.060(1). 18 For the following reasons, the Court finds that the requirements for dismissal of Ligeri’s 19 claims under UPEPA and/or Rule 12(b)(6) are satisfied here.”
Law Off. Of John Randolph, Pllc V. Ewu Media Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). ““In assessing whether the trial court erred by denying [EWU Media’s] UPEPA motion, we engage in the three- step analysis dictated by RCW 4.105.060(1).” Id. at 388 . First, it is the moving party’s burden to establish that the UPEPA applies to the cause of action.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1)(a) — 6 cases
Jeffrey Thurman v. Cowles Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Rather, it provides an expedited process for dismissing that and other causes of action if three conditions are met, including that the cause of action is subject to dismissal under the standards of CR 12(b)(6) or CR 56.”
Dimension Townhouses, Llc., V. Leganieds, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “And third, if the responding party does not demonstrate that an exception applies, the trial court must dismiss the action if either: (i) The responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or (ii) The moving party…”
Montano v. State of Washington Dep't of Health (W.D. Wash. 2025). “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (1)). 10 a. Matter of Public Concern 11 KREM-2 News Defendants argue their reporting in this case was on a matter of 12 significant public concern, namely public health and Plaintiff’s patients’ potential exposure to 13 serious infectious…”
Micahn T. Carter v. Mary E. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 4.105.060(1). If the moving party prevails on the UPEPA motion, the trial court must award the party its costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses.”
Button (W.D. Wash. 2026). “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (1)). 24 1 “Although UPEPA is a creature of Washington law, it can nonetheless be applied by 2 federal courts.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1)(b) — 7 cases
Ligeri v. Parker (W.D. Wash. 2025). “CODE § 4.105.060(1). 18 For the following reasons, the Court finds that the requirements for dismissal of Ligeri’s 19 claims under UPEPA and/or Rule 12(b)(6) are satisfied here.”
Micahn T. Carter v. Mary E. Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 4.105.060(1). If the moving party prevails on the UPEPA motion, the trial court must award the party its costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses.”
Dimension Townhouses, Llc., V. Leganieds, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “And third, if the responding party does not demonstrate that an exception applies, the trial court must dismiss the action if either: (i) The responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or (ii) The moving party…”
Montano v. State of Washington Dep't of Health (W.D. Wash. 2025). “(citing Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060 (1)). 10 a. Matter of Public Concern 11 KREM-2 News Defendants argue their reporting in this case was on a matter of 12 significant public concern, namely public health and Plaintiff’s patients’ potential exposure to 13 serious infectious…”
Valve Corp., V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 4.105.060(1). We review the denial of a UPEPA motion to dismiss de novo.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1)(c) — 2 cases
Law Off. Of John Randolph, Pllc V. Ewu Media Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). ““In assessing whether the trial court erred by denying [EWU Media’s] UPEPA motion, we engage in the three- step analysis dictated by RCW 4.105.060(1).” Id. at 388 . First, it is the moving party’s burden to establish that the UPEPA applies to the cause of action.”
Dimension Townhouses, Llc., V. Leganieds, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “And third, if the responding party does not demonstrate that an exception applies, the trial court must dismiss the action if either: (i) The responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action; or (ii) The moving party…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1)(c)(ii)(A) — 2 cases
Valve Corp., V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 4.105.060(1). We review the denial of a UPEPA motion to dismiss de novo.”
Proj. Veritas v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “2 RCW 4.105.060. 18 19 2 Under RCW 4.105.060, the third prong can be met via three options: (1) the responding party fails to 20 establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action, (2) the moving party establishes that the responding party failed to…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(1)(ii)(A) — 1 case
Valve Corp., V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” RCW 4.105.060(1). We review the denial of a UPEPA motion to dismiss de novo.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(2) — 1 case
Leader Capital Corp v. FNEX Capital LLC et al. (W.D. Wash. 2026). “59 6 (citing RCW 4.105.060). 7 The issues are addressed in turn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(a) — 1 case
TorchStar Corp v. Hyatech Inc (E.D. Wash. 2023). “010(3)(a)(iii) 7 Section 4.105.060 provides the standards for ruling on a special motion to 8 dismiss.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.105.060(b) — 1 case
TorchStar Corp v. Hyatech Inc (E.D. Wash. 2023). “010(3)(a)(iii) 7 Section 4.105.060 provides the standards for ruling on a special motion to 8 dismiss.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.