Lewis County v. State Of Washington ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                   A= ILED
    COOT CI' APPEALS
    M``,fISIM 11
    2013 DEC 17        AM S. 4 9
    S TA                  HIi u     N'
    ID ``
    t
    sy /
    C;      i
    UT         t
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    LEWIS COUNTY,                                                    I                       No. 43790 -2 -II
    Appellant,
    V.
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                 I              PUBLISHED OPINION
    JOHANSON, J. —           Lewis County appeals the trial court' s order dismissing its declaratory
    judgment      action without prejudice.            The County argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its
    case    because ( 1)      it   meets       all   four justiciable        controversy     elements   under        the " Uniform
    Declaratory     Judgments Act" ( UDJA), chapter 7. 24 RCW; and ( 2) in the alternative, it is a case of
    major    public   importance.          We affirm because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    dismissing the County' s case which neither meets the justiciable controversy elements nor
    presents an issue of major public importance.
    FACTS
    In October 2011,           the County sought judgment declaring that the State, and not the
    County,       bears   civil    liability    for the   official       acts   of   Lewis   County   Superior Court judges,
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    commissioners, juvenile court and juvenile detention staff, and other officers and employees
    hereinafter " the Judicial Branch ").            The County alleged that from time to time, parties bring
    proceedings against it claiming money damages and other relief due to acts of the Judicial
    Branch.     In the past, the County was liable for such money damages, and the County sought a
    declaration that   all   future   successful similar      disputes be the State'       s   financial responsibility. The
    County alleged that this case presented a question of great public importance to each of
    Washington'    s counties and      to   all people of    Washington.        The State responded that the County' s
    case did not present a justiciable claim under the UDJA and alleged that the trial court lacked
    jurisdiction to hear the case.
    The County then filed several declarations that explained how the superior court judges
    1
    had handled    proceedings        involving     the Judicial Branch        in the   past.       One declaration was from
    Vyrle Hill, Executive Director             of    the   Washington Counties Risk Pool ( " Risk Pool "), the
    County' s insurance       provider.      Hill' s declaration listed the claims and lawsuits submitted to the
    Risk Pool from 2000 through 2011 relating to actions of the Judicial Branch.
    The State filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under CR 12( c) and claimed lack
    of subject matter   jurisdiction        under   CR 12( b)( 1).       The State argued that the judgment the County
    1 The chief civil deputy of the prosecuting attorney' s office filed a declaration explaining that
    when legal or administrative actions involving the Judicial Branch had arisen in the past, that the
    judges would decide whether to use the prosecutor' s attorneys or private. practice defense
    attorneys   to handle the     action.     The County' s human resources administrator filed a declaration
    explaining that the judges did not regularly ask him for human resource advice, did not have
    their own human resources specialist, and did not contract with an outside human resources
    specialist. A County commissioner filed a declaration explaining that the judges made their own
    employment decisions and that the commissioners could offer advice but could not adopt any
    policies to reduce civil liability for the Judicial Branch.
    2
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    sought would reverse 123 years of established law and practice by relieving the County of all
    liability for the official acts of the Judicial Branch, and that this practice would be more proper
    for the legislature,   not   the   court,   to     change   if it desired.       The State also argued that the court
    should dismiss the County' s complaint because it asked the court to speculate about hypothetical
    fact patterns that may never arise, had not pleaded a justiciable controversy under the UDJA, and
    had   not   joined necessary       parties.      In response, the County argued that the State should be
    financially responsible for the Judicial Branch because the County is unable to control or direct
    the Judicial Branch' s conduct, that its claim met all the UDJA' s justiciability elements, that all
    necessary parties were joined, and that its complaint presented a significant and continuing
    matter of public importance.2
    The trial court granted the State' s motion to dismiss and ordered judgment on the
    pleadings.    After quoting the elements for a justiciable controversy, the court ruled that judgment
    for the State   was    appropriate    because ( 1) the        County did         not present "`` an actual,   present, and
    existing dispute, "' quoting Walker           v.   Munro, 
    124 Wash. 2d 402
    , 411, 
    879 P.2d 920
    ( 1994); ( 2) the
    County did not present interests that were direct and substantial; and ( 3) there was no tort claim
    pending against the County. The court also ruled that the County' s case did not present an issue
    of major     public   importance      and     dismissed the County'          s    complaint   without   prejudice.   The
    County appeals.
    2
    The County supported its response with a declaration from the County' s risk and safety
    administrator, who explained that the Risk Pool decides whether to settle or defend claims and
    that if the County disagreed with the Risk Pool' s decision, the County could lose its insurance
    coverage.
    3
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    ANALYSIS
    1.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
    A court will refuse to consider a declaratory judgment action when it determines that the
    plaintiff has not presented a judiciable controversy and has not presented an issue of major
    public   importance. Nollette   v.   Christianson, 
    115 Wash. 2d 594
    , 598, 
    800 P.2d 359
    ( 1990);                 Kitsap
    County v. Smith, 
    143 Wash. App. 893
    , 902, 
    180 P.3d 834
    , review denied, 
    164 Wash. 2d 1036
    ( 2008).
    We review a trial court' s refusal to consider a declaratory judgment action for an abuse of
    discretion.   
    Nollette, 115 Wash. 2d at 599
    ;   Kitsap County,   143 Wn.     App.     at   902.   A trial court
    abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.
    Kitsap 
    County, 143 Wash. App. at 902
    .
    A court' s decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of
    acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard; it is based on
    untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the record; it is based
    on untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not
    meet the requirements of the correct standard."
    Kitsap 
    County, 143 Wash. App. at 902
    ( quoting Lu v. King County, 
    110 Wash. App. 92
    , 99, 
    38 P.3d 1040
    ( 2002)).
    Here, the trial court refused to consider the declaratory judgment action because the
    County had failed to present a justiciable controversy and did not present an issue of major
    public importance. Thus, we must determine whether it abused its discretion in doing so.
    II. DISCUSSION
    Courts have the "``   power   to declare     rights, status and other   legal   relations "'   by declaratory
    judgment. League of Educ. Voters            v.   State, 
    176 Wash. 2d 808
    , 816, 
    295 P.3d 743
    ( 2013) ( quoting
    RCW 7. 24. 010).    For a trial court to render a declaratory judgment under the UDJA, there must
    0
    No. 43790 -2 -I1
    be   a   justiciable controversy,        unless   the   case presents an    issue   of major public   importance.     Wash.
    State Republican Party v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm' n, 
    141 Wash. 2d 245
    , 284, 
    4 P.3d 808
    ( 2000).             We agree with the trial court that the County presented neither type of qualifying
    issue here.
    A. Justiciable Controversy
    A justiciable controversy is
    1) ...      an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as
    distinguished        from    a    possible,    dormant, hypothetical,          speculative,   or   moot
    disagreement, ( 2) between             parties   having   genuine       and   opposing interests, ( 3)
    which involves interests that must be direct and substantial, rather than potential,
    theoretical, abstract or academic, and ( 4) a judicial determination of which will be
    final and conclusive."
    Republican 
    Party, 141 Wash. 2d at 284
    ( quoting Wash. State Coal. for the Homeless v. Dep' t of
    Soc. & Health Servs., 
    133 Wash. 2d 894
    , 917, 
    949 P.2d 1291
    ( 1997)).                           Each of these four elements
    must       be    met,      otherwise    the   court "   steps into the prohibited area of advisory opinions."
    Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 
    82 Wash. 2d 811
    , 815, 
    514 P.2d 137
    ( 1973).
    Addressing the first justiciability element, the County argues that its case presents an
    actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one" because of the frequency and
    regularity with which damage claims against the officers and employees of all 39 Washington
    superior courts arise.            Republican      
    Party, 141 Wash. 2d at 284
    .    The State argues that the County' s
    case presents only a speculative or moot disagreement because the County did not currently have
    any individuals suing or even making a demand on the County for tortious conduct of any of the
    Judicial Branch.             The State is     correct.    The County makes bare assertions but does not cite
    similar cases that would show that its case presents an actual, present, and existing dispute or
    E
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    even   the   mature seeds of such a       dispute.   Thus the County gives us no basis to hold that the trial
    court abused its discretion.
    Furthermore, as the State points out, this case is very similar to Diversified Industries
    where our      Supreme Court held that the first         justiciability   element        had   not   been   met.   
    82 Wash. 2d 815
    .    In Diversified Industries, a lessor brought a declaratory judgment action against residential
    unit lessees and their liability insurer, asking the court to declare who would be financially
    responsible     for   accidents or   injuries to   a social guest on    the   lessees'    
    premises. 82 Wash. 2d at 812
    .
    For the first justiciability element, the Supreme Court held that until the claim for financial
    responsibility from the social guest became " something more discernible than an unpredictable
    3
    contingency," the        case was a     hypothetical    or speculative    dispute.       Diversified 
    Indus., 82 Wash. 2d at 815
    .    Therefore, the court reversed the trial court' s declaratory judgment and dismissed the
    case without prejudice. Diversified 
    Indus., 82 Wash. 2d at 815
    . Here, the County presents a similar
    hypothetical or speculative dispute and simply cannot show that the first justiciability element is
    met.4
    Addressing the third justiciability element, the County argues that the amount of money
    at stake in the future creates a direct and substantial interest here, citing Hill' s declaration listing
    the claims and lawsuits submitted to the Risk Pool from 2000 through 2011, and citing Health &
    3 The court also discussed the fourth justiciability element and explained that because the
    legislature had just recently            made      changes   to   the            tenant laws,
    landlord -                      other intervening
    developments in the field could easily have an effect on any interpretation that the declaratory
    judgment might provide. Diversified 
    Indus., 82 Wash. 2d at 815
    .
    4 Because the County must establish all four elements to demonstrate a justiciable controversy
    the    failure to     establish   any   one   element   is fatal to its   claim.         Nonetheless, we exercise our
    discretion to address the third justiciability element as well.
    G
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Marion County, 
    470 N.E.2d 1348
    , 1353 ( Ind. App. 1984).
    But the       County' s   sole citation    to Health &          Hospital     Corp. is      not persuasive.      First, Health &
    Hospital Corp. is a nonbinding opinion from another state in which the court did not apply the
    same justiciable controversy test that we apply in Washington, and second, the amounts at issue
    were much         higher than the       amounts claimed          
    here. 470 N.E.2d at 1353
    .   In Health & Hospital
    Corp., nearly one million dollars was at issue for the year 1978, and over one million dollars was
    at    issue for   each of   the   years   1979, 1980,          and   
    1981. 470 N.E.2d at 1353
    .   Here, as the State
    points    out,    the   amount     of   money         at    issue is far lower.           According to the County' s own
    declarations,      past claims against         the Judicial Branch       average         less than $ 17, 000   a year— nowhere
    near    the   one million     dollars that     created a substantial         interest in Health & Hospital           Corp.   The
    5
    County' s      arguments and cited        authority         are unpersuasive.
    As     in Diversified Industries,                the County presents a question of an unpredictable
    contingency because the County' s action did not include facts of any financial liability claim that
    it presently 
    faced. 82 Wash. 2d at 815
    .        The County does not cite any cases where aggregation of
    several past claims have been sufficient to create an " actual, present and existing dispute, or the
    mature seeds of one."             Republican     
    Party, 141 Wash. 2d at 284
    .    And we do not agree that the trial
    court abused its discretion in refusing to find that the amount of money at issue here creates
    direct and substantial" interests. Republican 
    Party, 141 Wash. 2d at 284
    . We hold that the County
    5
    Additionally, the County cites several more out -of-state cases to support its argument that state
    -
    constitutional      issues   are well    suited      for    declaratory judgments.           But for a court to reach these
    grounds, it must first find that the justiciability elements are met and here the County cannot
    overcome this hurdle.    The County fails to explain how its case resembles the cited cases, why
    established Washington case law is insufficient, or how the court abused its discretion in ruling
    that the justiciability elements were not met.
    7
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    failed to meet its burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that
    the County failed to meet the four justiciability elements and, thus failed to present a justiciable
    controversy.
    B. Major Public Importance Exception
    Alternatively, the County argues that if we determine that the justiciability elements were
    not met, we should hold that declaratory judgment would have been proper because it presents an
    issue of major public importance regarding the constitutional status of the Judicial Branch in the
    context of tort or contract litigation. We disagree.
    If the four justiciability elements are not met, a court may still enter declaratory judgment
    if the issue is one of major public importance. Republican 
    Party, 141 Wash. 2d at 284
    . Whether an
    issue is one of major public importance depends on " the extent to which public interest would be
    enhanced     by    reviewing the        case."   Snohomish County v. Anderson, 
    124 Wash. 2d 834
    , 841, 
    881 P.2d 240
    ( 1994) (        emphasis omitted).          Courts will apply the major public importance exception
    only in rare cases where the public' s interest is overwhelming and the issue has been adequately
    briefed   and argued.        To -Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 
    144 Wash. 2d 403
    , 416, 
    27 P.3d 1149
    ( 2001),
    cent.   denied, 
    535 U.S. 931
    ( 2002).                For the exception to apply, the dispute must also be ripe.
    League of Educ. 
    Voters, 176 Wash. 2d at 820
    .   Whether a claim is ripe depends on whether the
    issues    raised   are "   primarily legal, and do not require further factual development, and if the
    challenged action          is final."    dafar   v.    Webb, 
    177 Wash. 2d 520
    , 525, 
    303 P.3d 1042
    ( 2013).    If   a
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    claim    is    speculative and   hypothetical, it is        not ripe.    Diversified 
    Indus., 82 Wash. 2d at 815
    .   We
    also consider the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. 
    Jafar, 177 Wash. 2d at 525
    .
    The County asserts that its case is ripe, arguing that because the state' s 39 counties spend
    hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on such claims, its case " surely shows that the present
    action relates        to anything but   a   hypothetical     or speculative matter."      Br. of Appellant at 17 -18.
    But even if we agreed that the County' s claim was ripe for review, the County fails to show that
    the public' s interest is overwhelming.
    The County does not compare its case to other cases where the major public importance
    exception       has   applied.   Washington courts have applied this exception in cases involving, for
    example,        eligibility to   stand      for    public   office,     freedom   of   choice   in    elections,    and   the
    constitutionality        of excise   taxes.       Coal. for the 
    Homeless, 133 Wash. 2d at 917
    .   Clearly issues
    involving elections, public office, and constitutionality of taxes affect every citizen in the State,
    while the County' s case here really affects only the corresponding budgets of the County and the
    State.    A declaratory judgment here ultimately would not even directly affect citizens who bring
    claims against the Judicial Branch because the only issue presented is who is financially
    responsible: the County or the State.
    We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the County' s case
    does not present an issue of major public importance.
    9
    No. 43790 -2 -II
    We affirm.
    Johanson, J.
    We concur:
    a
    xuntJ.
    Worswick, C. J.
    10