SUSAN MAYER, Derivatively on Behalf of OLYMPIA FOOD COOPERATIVE, Appellants/ Plaintiffs Below
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RECEIVED SUPREME COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON May 24, 2013, 4:40 pm BY RONALD R. CARPENTEL/ CLERK NO. 87745 -9 IN THE SUPREME COURT RECEIVED BY E -MAIL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KENT L. and LINDA DAVIS; JEFFREY and SUSAN TRININ; and SUSAN MAYER, derivatively on behalf of OLYMPIA FOOD COOPERATIVE, Appellants/ Plaintiffs Below, v. GRACE COX; ROCHELLE GAUSE; ERIN GENIA; T.J. JOHNSON; JAYNE KASZYNSKI; JACKIE KRZYZEK; JESSICA LAING; RON LAVIGNE; HARRY LEVINE; ERIC MAPES; JOHN NASON; JOHN REGAN; ROB RICHARDS; SUZANNE SHAFER; JULIA SOKOLOFF; and JOELLEN REINECK WILHELM, Respondents/ Defendants Below. BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS Bruce E.H. Johnson WSBA #7667 Sarah K. Duran, WSBA #38954 Angela Galloway, WSBA #45330 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Attorneys for Respondents Suite 2200 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 -3045 206) 622 -3150 Phone 206) 757 -7700 Fax j ORIGINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 11. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 A. Exercising Their Duties Under the Co -op' s Bylaws, Respondents Approved the Boycott 2 B. The Trial Court Dismissed Appellants' Lawsuit for Targeting Free Expression. 5 I11. ARGUMENT 8 A. Standards of Review. 8 B. Washington' s Anti -SLAPP Statute Broadly Protects Speech and Petitioning 9 1. The Trial Court Correctly Ruled that Respondents' Boycott Qualified for Protection Under RCW 4. 24. 525 12 2. Appellants Failed to Show by Clear and Convincing Evidence a Probability of Prevailing on their Claims 17 a. The Board Was Authorized to Break the Staff Deadlock. 18 b. To the extent Appellants Argue Ultra Vires on Appeal, Their Claim Fails 21 c. The " Business Judgment Rule" Immunizes the Board Members 22 d. The Trial Court Properly Ruled That Appellants Failed to Meet Their Burden of Proof 23 C. The Court Should Reject Appellants' Constitutional Challenges to the Anti -SLAPP Statute. 26 1. The Statute' s Automatic Stay Provision Is Constitutional. 28 a. The Discovery Stay Does Not Violate Separation of Powers. 28 b. The Discovery Stay Does Not Violate the Right of Access 32 c. The Discovery Stay Is Not Unconstitutional as Applied 34 d. The Statute' s Clear and Convincing Standard is Constitutional 35 2. RCW 4. 24. 525 Does Not Violate the Right to a Jury Trial and Is Not Impermissibly Vague 37 D. The Trial Court Properly Struck the Hearsay Paragraphs in Appellants' Declarations and Denied Their Request for Discovery. 40 1. Appellants Failed to Show Good Cause to Pursue Discovery. 40 2. The Court Properly Struck the Hearsay Portions of Appellants' Declarations 43 E. The Trial Court Properly Imposed the Anti -SLAPP Statute' s Awards. 44 1. Fees, Costs, and Statutory Damages Are Proper against Plaintiffs. 45 2. Each Prevailing Respondent Is Due the Statutory Award 47 F. Respondents Request Their Attorneys' Fees on Appeal 49 IV. CONCLUSION 49 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page( s) Washington Cases Bank ofAm. NT & SA v. Hubert, 153 Wn. 2d 102, 101 P. 3d 409 ( 2004) 9 Barry v. Johns, 82 Wn. App. 865, 928 P. 2d 222 ( 1996) 23 Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs., Inc., 164 Wn. 2d 432, 191 P. 3d 879 ( 2008) 9, 14, 37 Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wn. 2d 37, 515 P. 2d 154 ( 1973) 39 City ofFircresl v. Jensen, 158 Wn. 2d 384, 143 P. 3d 776 ( 2006) 29 Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn. 2d 772, 819 P. 2d 370 ( 1991) 9 Glaubach v. Regence BlueShield, 149 Wn. 2d 827, 74 P. 3d 115 ( 2003) 16 Haberman v. Wash. Public Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn. 2d 107, 744 P. 2d 1032 ( 1987) 37 Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Ass' n v. Diehl, 95 Wn. App. 339, 979 P. 2d 854 ( 1999) 21 Hearst Commc 'ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn. 2d 493, 115 P. 3d 262 ( 2005) 24, 25, 43, 44 Hewitt v. Hewitt, 78 Wn. App. 447, 896 P. 2d 1312 ( 1995) 42 Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn. 2d 853, 93 P. 3d 108 ( 2004) 8 Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn. 2d 683, 974 P. 2d 836 ( 1999) 44 In re Estate ofFitzgerald, 172 Wn. App. 437, 294 P. 3d 720 ( 2012) 33 In re Request of Rosier, 105 Wn. 2d 606, 717 P. 2d 1353 ( 1986) 37 In re Spokane Concrete Prods., Inc., 126 Wn. 2d 269, 892 P. 2d 98 ( 1995) 22 In re Ward' s Estate, 159 Wn. 252, 257, 257, 292 P. 737 ( 1930) 40 In re Welfare ofA. B., 168 Wn. 2d 908, 232 P. 3d 1 104 ( 2010) 36 Kelley v. State, 104 Wn. App. 328, 17 P. 3d 1 189 ( 2000) 23 LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn. 2d 193, 770 P. 2d 1027 ( 1989) 38 Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 88 Wn. 2d 855, 567 P. 2d 218 ( 1977) 19, 24 Lowe v. Rowe, 173 Wn. App. 253, 294 P. 3d 6 ( 2012) 8 Mark v. Seattle Times Co., 96 Wn. 2d 473, 635 P. 2d 1081 ( 1981) 2, 37 McCormick v. Dunn & Black, P.S., 140 Wn. App. 873, 167 P. 2d 610 ( 2007) 22 Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, P.S., 166 Wn. 2d 974, 216 P. 3d 374 ( 2009) 31, 32, 34 Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co., 98 Wn. 2d 226, 654 P. 2d 673 ( 1982) 9 Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm' n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 279 P. 3d 943 ( 2012) 19, 24 iv Rodruck v. Sand Point Main!. Comm 'n, 48 Wn. 2d 565, 295 P. 2d 714 ( 1956) 19, 20 Sch. Discs. Alliance for Adequate Funding ofSpecial Educ. v. State, 170 Wn. 2d 599, 244 P. 3d 1 ( 2010) 27 Sharbono v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 139 Wn. App. 383, 161 P. 3d 406 ( 2007) 49 Sims v. KIRO, Inc., 20 Wn. App. 229, 237, 487, 580 P. 2d 642 ( 1978) 37 Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 v. Snohomish County, 128 Wn. App. 418, 115 P. 3d 1057 ( 2005) 44 Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 1 12 Wn. 2d 636, 771 P. 2d 711 ( 1989) 35 South Tacoma Way, LLC v. State, 169 Wn. 2d 118, 233 P. 3d 871 ( 2010) 21, 22 Spokane Police Guild v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn. 2d 30, 769 P. 2d 283 ( 1989) 8 Spratt v. Crusader Ins. Co., 109 Wn. App. 944, 37 P. 3d 1269 ( 2002) 24 State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wn. 2d 528, 98 P. 3d 1 190 ( 2004) 9 State v. Evans, No. 74410 -6, 2013 WL 1490589 ( Wash.. 2013) 9 State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn. 2d 536, 242 P. 3d 876 ( 2010) 47 State v. Luvene, 127 Wn. 2d 690, 903 P. 2d 960 ( 1995) 40, 43, 44 Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass' n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn. 2d 299, 858 P. 2d 1054 ( 1993) 24 v Other State Cases 1 - 800 Contacts, 107 CaI. App. 4th 568, 593 -594, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 789 ( 2003) 41, 43 Anderson Dev. Co. v. Tobias, 116 P. 3d 323 ( Utah 2005) 27 Britts v. Superior Court, 145 CaI. App. 4th 1 1 12, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 ( 2006) 30 Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass 'n No. 1, Inc., 656 P. 2d 621 ( Ariz. App. 1982) 46 Chavez v. Mendoza, 94 CaI. App. 4th 1083, 114 CaI. Rptr. 2d 825 ( 2001) 16 Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 53, 124 CaI. Rptr. 507, 52 P. 2d 685 ( 2002) 27, 28 Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court, 1 17 Cal. App. 4th 1 156 ( 2004) 41 Hometown Props., Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56 ( R. 1. 1996) 27 Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ' g Co., 37 CaI. App. 4th 855, 44 CaI. Rptr. 2d 46 ( 1995) 27, 28 Lee v. Pennington, 830 So. 2d 1037 ( La. Ct. App. 2002) 28 N. Am. Expositions Co. Ltd. P 'ship v. Corcoran, 898 N. E. 2d 831 ( Mass. 2009) 13 Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal. 4th 82, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530 ( 2002) 16 Nexus v. Sw ft, 785 N. W. 2d 771 ( Minn. Ct. App. 2010) 27, 37 Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi- Kerttula, 159 CaI. App. 4th 1 027, 72 CaI. Rptr. 3d 210 ( 2008) 14 vi Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, 85 CaI. App. 4th 1356, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 ( 2001) 16 Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N. E. 2d 418 ( 111. 2012) 27 Schroeder v. Irvine City Council, 97 CaI. App. 4th 174, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330 ( 2002) 31 Sipple v. Found. for Natl' s Progress, 71 CaI. App. 4th 226, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677 ( 1999) 41, 43 Sletteland v. Roberts, 64 P. 3d 979 ( Mont. 2003) 45 Soukup v. Law Offices ofHerbert Hafif, 39 Cal. 4th 260, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638, 139 P. 3d 30 ( 2006) 8 Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 664, 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98 ( 2010) 39 Tuchscher Dev. Enters, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App.4th 1219, 1234, 132 Cal. Rptr.2d 57 ( 2003) 16 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal. 4th 180, 25 CaI. Rptr. 3d 298, 106 P. 3d 958 ( 2005) 30, 40 Wilcox v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 4th 809, 33 CaI. Rptr. 2d 446 ( 1994), 13, 39 Federal Cases Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 ( 1986) 39 AR Pillow Inc. v. Maxwell Payton, LLC, No. C 11- 1962RAJ, 2012 WL 6024765 W. D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2012) 32, 45, 48 Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1 104 ( W. D. Wash. 2010) passim vii Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S.