MOTION to DISMISS 14 V

1 The Honorable Brian McDonald Hearing Date: Thursday, May 21, 2020 1 Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 9 IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 10 WASHINGTON LEAGUE FOR 11 INCREASED TRANSPARENCY & ETHICS, a Washington non-profit No. 20-2-07428-4 SEA 12 corporation. 13 WASHLITE’S RESPONSE ON Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS 14 v. 15 FOX CORPORATION, a Delaware 16 corporation; FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, 17 a Delaware corporation d/b/a FOX NEWS CHANNEL; FOX BUSINESS NETWORK, a 18 for profit company d/b/a/ FOX BUSINESS; JOHN MOE and JANE MOE, 1-100,, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Response on Motion to Dismiss - 1 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE C. CLARK PLLC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 1250, Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 838-2528 Facsimile: (206) 374-3003 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 10 2 II. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON ............................................................................. 11 3 III. FACTS ................................................................................................................ 11 4 IV. ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................................................................... 12 5 V. AUTHORITIES & ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 12 6 A. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS............. 12 7 1. Under CR 12, the facts allected in the Amended Complaint are 8 treated as true .............................................................................. 12 9 2. Under CR 56, all inferences are in WASHLITE’s favor ............ 14 10 B. CABLE TELEVISION DOES NOT STAND ON EQUAL FOOTING 11 AS PRINT MEDIA OR BROADCAST TELEVISION ........................ 16 12 C. FOX HAS VIOLATED THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT .............................................................................. 19 13 1. Cable television is subject to consumer protection laws ............ 20 14 15 2. WASHLITE has standing to bring the action on behalf of its members ..................................................................................... 20 16 3. Fox has deceived consumers in Washington State in a number of 17 ways ............................................................................................ 21 18 a. COVID-19 is a serious and lethal threat to human life .. 22 19 b. Fox deceives Washington consumers by disclaiming that 20 it is a “news” source ....................................................... 23 21 c. The existence of COVID-19 and its lethality is not a political issue .................................................................. 25 22 4. Fox’s statements denying the lethality of COVID-19 are also 23 unfair under the CPA as immoral and unethical ........................ 26 24 25 Response on Motion to Dismiss - 2 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE C. CLARK PLLC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 1250, Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 838-2528 Facsimile: (206) 374-3003 1 D. FOX DOES BUSINESS IN WASHINGTON STATE—IT MAINTAINS ITS OFFICE IN BELLTOWN ............................................................... 27 1 2 E. SPREADING MISINFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19 ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................................................... 30 3 1. The PIP declares that accurate and authentic information about a 4 pandemic is in the public interest ............................................... 30 5 2. False statements regarding the lethality of COVID-19 has the capacity to injure Washington consumers .................................. 31 6 F. WASHLITE MEMBERS AND WASHINGTON CONSUMERS HAVE 7 BEEN INJURED BY FOX’S FALSE STATEMENTS ......................... 33 8 G. A CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN FOX’S FALSE STATEMENTS AND 9 DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED .......................... 34 10 VI. PROPOSED ORDER ......................................................................................... 35 11 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 36 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Response on Motion to Dismiss - 3 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE C. CLARK PLLC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 1250, Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 838-2528 Facsimile: (206) 374-3003 1 Table of Authorities 1 Cases 2 Associated Press v. Int'l News Serv., 3 4 245 F. 244 (2d Cir. 1917) ...................................................................................................... 23 5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 6 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................. 11 7 Buchanan v. Rhodes, 8 249 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Ohio 1966) ...................................................................................... 25 9 Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 10 412 U.S. 94 (1973) ............................................................................................................ 9, 16 11 12 Crowley v. Christensen, 13 137 US 86 (1890) .................................................................................................................. 18 14 Davis v. Cox, 15 183 Wn.2d 269, 351 P.2d 862 (2015) ................................................................................... 11 16 Denver Area Educ. Telcoms. Consortium, v. FCC, 17 518 U.S. 727 (1996) ........................................................................................................ 10, 15 18 19 Didlake v. State, 186 20 Wn. App. 417, 345 P.3d 43 (2015) ........................................................................................ 12 21 District of Columbia v. Heller, 22 554 U.S. 570 (2008) .............................................................................................................. 17 23 Federal Trade Comm’n v. Raladalm Co., 24 25 Response on Motion to Dismiss - 4 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE C. CLARK PLLC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 1250, Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 838-2528 Facsimile: (206) 374-3003 1 283 U.S. 643 (1931) .............................................................................................................. 28 1 Fidelity Mort. Corp. v. Seattle Times Co., 2 131 Wn. App. 462, 128 P.3d 621 (2005) ......................................................................... 23, 34 3 Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 4 175 Wn.2d 68, 283 P.3d 1082 (2012) ................................................................................... 12 5 6 Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 7 109 Wn.2d 107, 744 P.2d 1032, 1046 (1987) ....................................................................... 12 8 Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 9 105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) ....................................................................... 19, 21, 33 10 Holiday Resort Cmty. Ass’n v. Echo Lake Assoc., LLC, 11 134 Wn. App. 210, 135 P.3d 499 (2006) ............................................................................... 18 12 13 Holiday Resort Comm. Assoc. v. Echo Lake Assoc., LLC, 14 134 Wn. App. 210, 135 P.3d 499 (2006) ............................................................................... 12 15 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanai, 16 177 Wn. 2d 743, 302 P.3d 864 (2013) .................................................................................. 13 17 Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 18 162 Wn.2d 59, 170 P.3d 10 (2007) ....................................................................................... 33 19 Ivan’s Tire Serv., v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 20 21 10 Wn. App. 110, 517 P.2d 229 (1973) ................................................................................. 28 22 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 23 197 US 11 (1905) .................................................................................................................. 18 24 King Cy. v. Taxpayers of King Cy., 25 Response on Motion to Dismiss - 5 LAW OFFICE OF CATHERINE C. CLARK PLLC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 1250, Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 838-2528 Facsimile: (206) 374-3003 1 104 Wn.2d 1, 700 P.2d 1143 (1985) ..................................................................................... 30 1 Leathers v. Medlock, 2 499 U.S. 439 (1991) .............................................................................................................. 16 3 Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 4 476 U.S. 488 (1986) .............................................................................................................. 16 5 6 Magney v. Lincoln Mut. Sav. Bank, 7 34 Wn. App. 45, 659 P.2d 537 (1983) ................................................................................... 26 8 McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, 9 169 Wn.2d 96, 233 P.3d 861 (2010) ..................................................................................... 11 10 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 11 418 U.S. 241 (1974) .......................................................................................................... 9, 16 12 13 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 14 376 U.S. 245 (1964) ................................................................................................................ 9 15 O'Connor v. Donaldson, 16 422 U.S. 563 (1975) .............................................................................................................. 18 17 Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Cal., 18 475 U.S. 1 (1996) .................................................................................................................

Load more