Jack Woodrow Lindell v. Richard Eugene Bocook ( 2016 )

FILED
OCTOBER 4, 2016
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
JACK WOODROW LINDELL, ) No. 32106-1-111
)
Respondent, )
)
V. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
RICHARD EUGENE BOCOOK, )
)
Petitioner. )
PENNELL, J. -Richard Bocook appeals an anti-harassment protection order along
with related fees and costs. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
As the parties are familiar with the facts, they need not be recounted in detail. Jack
Lindell worked as the chief of security for River Park Square and provided security to the
federal courthouse in downtown Spokane. He petitioned the district court for a civil anti-
harassment protection order against Mr. Bocook, alleging numerous incidents of
harassment in a variety of locations and contexts. Two such incidents occurred during
city council meetings.
No. 32106-1-III
Lindell v. Bocook
The district court granted Mr. Lindell a restraining order, and Mr. Bocook
appealed to superior court. Once in superior court, Mr. Lindell requested statutory
attorney fees and costs. In response, Mr. Bocook argued Mr. Lindell's request triggered
application of the anti-SLAPP 1 statute, RCW 4.24.510. The superior court affirmed the
anti-harassment protection order, rejected Mr. Bocook's anti-SLAPP claim, and awarded
attorney fees and costs totaling $51,327.26 to Mr. Lindell.
Mr. Bocook sought discretionary review with this court. We denied review of the
protection order but determined the superior court's award of attorney fees and costs and
the ruling on the application of the anti-SLAPP statute were appealable as a matter of
right. Mr. Bocook subsequently moved for discretionary review of the protection order
with the Washington Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied Mr. Bocook's motion.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Bocook argues that once Mr. Lindell moved in the superior court for fees and
costs, the nature of the parties' dispute transformed from a claim for injunctive relief to
one for civil damages. Mr. Bocook contends this transformation, coupled with the fact
that Mr. Lindell's original anti-harassment petition cited statements made by Mr. Bocook
to the city council, triggered his ability to claim immunity under Washington's anti-
1
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
2
No. 32106-1-III
Lindell v. Bocook
SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.510. These arguments involve issues of law, which we review
de novo. Emmerson v. Weilep, 126 Wn. App. 930, 935, 110 P.3d 214 (2005).
The applicable anti-SLAPP statute2 provides, in pertinent part:
A person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch or
agency of federal, state, or local government ... is immune from civil
liability for claims based upon the communication to the agency ...
regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency ....
RCW 4.24.510 (emphasis added). The statute protects against lawsuits that abuse the
judicial process in order to silence free expression. Davis v. Cox, 183 Wn.2d 269, 275,
351 P.3d 862 (2015). It operates by granting civil immunity to "those who complain to
their government regarding issues of public interest or social significance." Skimming v.
Boxer, 119 Wn. App. 748, 758, 82 P.3d 707 (2004). The statute applies only to suits for
damages, not injunctive relief. Emmerson, 126 Wn. App. at 937.
Resolution of Mr. Bocook's anti-SLAPP arguments requires an analysis of the
type of claim brought by Mr. Lindell. In making this determination, we look to the
principal thrust of the cause of action. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC, 179
Wn. App. 41, 71-72, 316 P.3d 1119 (2014). "The fact that one party's protected activity
may have triggered the other party's cause of action does not necessarily mean the cause
2
A separate anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525, was invalidated by Davis v. Cox,
183 Wn.2d 269,351 P.3d 862 (2015). The present statute is not impacted by Davis.
3
No. 32106-1-III
Lindell v. Bocook
of action arose from the protected activity." City of Seattle v. Egan, 179 Wn. App. 333,
341,317 P.3d 568 (2014).
While Mr. Bocook's complaints to the city council may have played a role in Mr. I
Lindell's decision to seek a protection order, they were not the primary impetus. The
principle thrust of Mr. Lindell's petition for protection was Mr. Bocook's repeated acts of
personal harassment, occurring at Mr. Lindell's places of employment and over the
internet. Given this context, Mr. Lindell's anti-harassment petition was not "based upon
communications to" the city council as required by RCW 4.24.510. Mr. Bocook's anti-
SLAPP defense was properly rejected. 3
Apart from his anti-SLAPP claim, Mr. Bocook appeals the superior court's award
of attorney fees and costs to Mr. Lindell as the prevailing party under RCW 10.14.090(2)
and RALJ 9.3(a), l l.2(b). Mr. Bocook challenges Mr. Lindell's status as the substantially
prevailing party, pointing out he successfully challenged the scope of the district court's
temporary restraining order. We are unpersuaded. The offending aspects of the
temporary order were only imposed inadvertently, due to the proximity of Mr. Lindell's
places of employment. Mr. Lindell never specifically sought to restrain access to any of
3
Based on the nature of our ruling, we need not address Mr. Bocook's claim the
superior court erroneously excluded the declaration of Danette Lanet. Any error was
harmless.
4
I
No. 32106-1-III
Lindell v. Bocook
the areas complained ofby Mr. Bocook. When Mr. Bocook pointed out the hardships
I
caused by the temporary order's geographic restrictions, Mr. Lindell agreed they should
I
be remedied. The fact that the district court's permanent order corrected the inadvertent
impact of the temporary order's geographic restrictions did not alter Mr. Lindell's status l
as the prevailing party. The superior court exercised appropriate discretion in awarding
attorney fees and costs to Mr. Lindell.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the superior court is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
5