Theodore B. Edenstrom v. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department ( 2019 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
November 5, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
THEODORE B. EDENSTROM; DEAN G. No. 52768-5-II
EDENSTROM; and LOGAN A.
EDENSTROM,
Appellants,
v.
THURSTON COUNTY RESOURCE UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STEWARDSHIP DEPARTMENT,
Respondent.
MELNICK, J. – Theodore B. Edenstrom, Dean G. Edenstrom, and Logan A. Edenstrom, all
self-represented litigants, appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their writ of quo warranto action
against Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department and Thurston County District Court
(collectively the County). The court concluded that res judicata barred the Edenstroms’ action.
The Edenstroms appeal contending the court’s dismissal is contrary to the customary usage of law
because the court erroneously applied the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm.
FACTS
The Edenstroms own waterfront property in Thurston County. They moor barges on the
shores of the property for their commercial business. In November 2013, the County sent a letter
to the Edenstroms, notifying them that they were violating County zoning ordinances. The parties
met to discuss the violation, but ultimately the Edenstroms did not request a permit and the County
took no legal action.
52768-5-II
In 2016, almost three years after the County issued its notice of violation letter, Theodore
Edenstrom filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in United States District Court, alleging numerous
constitutional violations, including due process and regulatory takings. The federal court
dismissed the action in summary judgment. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice except
the regulatory takings claim, which it dismissed without prejudice because Edenstrom had not
shown that the 2013 violation letter was a final decision and that Edenstrom had exhausted
Thurston County’s appeal procedure before filing suit.
The Edenstroms then requested a writ of quo warranto in Mason County Superior Court.1
The Edenstroms again alleged due process violations, arguing their land was “Outside the
jurisdictional control of the defendant County.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 47. The Edenstroms
requested a writ requiring the County to “answer to the State of Washington by what warrant of
authority” they had to limit the Edenstroms’ use of their property. CP at 47. The Department
argued that the Edenstroms’ issues had been litigated in another forum; thus, they were barred
under the doctrine of res judicata. The superior court agreed, and dismissed the matter. The
Edenstroms filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter to us.
ANALYSIS
The Edenstroms contend the superior court erred in dismissing their quo warranto action.
We conclude res judicata bars the Edenstroms’ quo warranto action; thus, the superior court
properly dismissed their action.
Legal issues regarding the propriety of a writ are reviewed de novo. Burd v. Clarke, 152
Wash. App. 970, 972, 219 P.3d 950 (2009). Likewise, whether res judicata bars a claim for relief is
1
The Edenstroms also filed a writ of prohibition, which the trial court dismissed. That dismissal
order is not the subject of this appeal.
2
52768-5-II
an issue of law that we review de novo. Berschauer Phillips Const. Co. v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins.
Co., 175 Wash. App. 222, 227, 308 P.3d 681 (2013).
A quo warranto action is used “to correct an alleged usurpation or unlawful holding of a
public or corporate office.” King County Dep’t of Cmty. & Human Servs. v. Nw. Defs. Ass’n, 118
Wash. App. 117, 127, 75 P.3d 583 (2003). The action is brought to oust any person intruding upon
a public office. State ex rel. Banks v. Drummond, 187 Wash. 2d 157, 168, 385 P.3d 769 (2016).
Res judicata is an affirmative defense that bars relitigation of claims and issues that were
litigated, or could have been litigated, in a prior action. Loveridge v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 125 Wash. 2d
759, 763, 887 P.2d 898 (1995). The purpose of the doctrine is “to prevent piecemeal litigation and
ensure the finality of judgments.” Spokane Research & Def. Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wash. 2d
89, 99, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005).
For res judicata to apply, there must have been a final judgment on the merits in a prior
action. Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wash. App. 62, 67, 11 P.3d 833 (2000). The subsequent action must
also be identical with the first action with respect to “(1) persons and parties; (2) cause of action;
(3) subject matter; and (4) the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.”
Spokane Research & Def. Fund, 155 Wash. 2d at 99.
Assuming without deciding that this is truly a quo warranto action, all of the required
elements of res judicata are present to bar the claim. The parties do not dispute that the parties are
the same, the subject matter is the same, and the quality of persons for or against whom the claim
is made is the same. At issue is whether the causes of action are the same.
Regarding identity of causes of action, res judicata applies to what might or should have
been litigated as well as what was litigated. Hadley v. Cowan, 60 Wash. App. 433, 440-41, 804 P.2d
1271 (1991).
3
52768-5-II
Edenstrom filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations,
including due process. The federal court dismissed the matter in summary judgment and the Ninth
Circuit affirmed. Edenstrom v. Thurston County, 715 Fed. Appx. 752, 754 (9th Cir. 2018)
(unpublished). The Edenstroms again alleged due process violations in their quo warranto action.
While a request for a writ and a § 1983 claim are different methods for relief in state and federal
courts, the causes of action based on a due process violation are the same in this case.
The Edenstroms argue that a dismissal “without prejudice” precludes application of the res
judicata doctrine. Br. of Appellant at 5. They fail to cite to the record to point us to what they are
referring. Indeed they provide no citations to the record to support any of their factual statements
as required under RAP 10.3(a)(5). Nevertheless, we assume they are referring to the federal court’s
dismissal of the regulatory takings claim, which was dismissed without prejudice because
Edenstrom failed to show the 2013 violation letter was a final order and that he followed the
County’s appeal procedures before filing suit.
Dismissal of an action “with prejudice” is a final judgment on the merits of a controversy
for purposes of res judicata, Berschauer Philips Constr. Co., 175 Wash. App. at 228 n. 11, but a
dismissal without prejudice may not be. See Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wash. App. 62, 70, 11 P.3d
833 (2000). Here, the arguments raised in the Edenstroms’ quo warranto action are identical to
those dismissed with prejudice in the federal courts. Even assuming the regulatory takings claim
was specifically raised in the quo warranto action, the Edenstroms cannot rely on the without
prejudice language to preclude summary judgment when they continue to fail to show the 2013
violation letter was a final decision and that they exhausted their administrative remedies. Given
all, the federal court’s without prejudice dismissal of the regulatory takings claim does not preclude
application of res judicata principles in the quo warranto action.
4
52768-5-II
Because all the required elements of res judicata are present, the superior court did not err
by dismissing the Edenstroms’ quo warranto action.2
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Melnick, J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Lee, A.C.J.
2
In their October 29, 2018 Additional Statement of Authorities, the Edenstroms challenge the
superior court’s jurisdiction to consider their quo warranto action. Article IV, section 6 of the
Washington Constitution addresses the jurisdiction of superior courts and provides (among other
matters) that superior courts “shall have power to issue writs of . . . quo warranto.”
5