Gabriella Kertesz, V. Bob Ferguson ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    GABRIELLA KERTÉSZ, an individual,
    No. 85872-6-I
    Appellant,
    DIVISION ONE
    v.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    BOB FERGUSON, Attorney General of
    the State of Washington,
    Respondent.
    MANN, J. — Gabriella Kertész sued the Washington Attorney General Bob
    Ferguson, alleging he failed to enforce a statute related to actions for injuries resulting
    from health care. Kertész appeals the denial of three orders: (1) her motion for
    summary judgment, (2) her petition for injunctive and declaratory relief, and (3) her
    motion to strike affirmative defense. Because the trial court granted Kertész’s motion to
    dismiss her complaint with prejudice and without costs under CR 41(a)(1)(A), we
    dismiss her appeal.
    I
    On May 24, 2023, Kertész sued Ferguson alleging failure to enforce RCW
    7.70.060 which provides for consent form contents related to actions for injuries
    resulting from health care. Kertész sought declaratory relief and an order directing
    Ferguson to enforce RCW 7.70.060. On May 25, 2023, Kertész moved for summary
    judgment. Kertész also moved to strike the defense of sovereign immunity and for an
    order shortening time.
    No. 85872-6-I/2
    The trial court denied the petition for declaratory judgment, denied the motion for
    summary judgment, and denied the motion to strike Ferguson’s affirmative defense.
    On September 11, 2023, Kertész asked the court “to grant an order of Dismissal
    with prejudice and without costs at the earliest opportunity.” Based on the parties’
    stipulation, on September 25, 2023, the trial court granted Kertész’s motion and
    dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs.
    Kertész appeals.
    II
    Ferguson asks that we dismiss Kertész’s appeal because the underlying matter
    was dismissed with prejudice. We agree.
    Kertész sought and obtained a stipulated dismissal of her case with prejudice
    and without costs. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice functions as a final judgment in
    favor of the defendant. Elliott Bay Adjustment Co., Inc., v. Dacumos, 
    200 Wn. App. 208
    ,
    213, 
    401 P.3d 473
     (2017). Because the case was dismissed, Kertész cannot revive
    claims that she voluntarily gave up by appealing the ruling that the trial court entered
    prior to the dismissal with prejudice.
    We dismiss the appeal.
    WE CONCUR:
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85872-6

Filed Date: 6/17/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/17/2024