Adrian Ayala v. Leender Drywall And David J. Leenders

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
LEENDERS DRYWALL, INC.; and
DAVID J. LEENDERS, individually and No. 72595-5-1
on behalf of his marital community,
DIVISION ONE
Respondents,
v.
ADRIAN AYALA, individually and on
behalf of his marital community; UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHRISTIAN BARRUETA, individually
and on behalf of his marital community;
JOAQUIN CADENA, individually and on
behalf of his marital community;
LEONEL CASTANEDA, individually and FILED: March 14, 2016
on behalf of his marital community;
FIDEL CASTRO, individually and on o
too
behalf of his marital community;
T>,73
ABRAHAM JIMINEZ ARCE, individually ZX. m
and on behalf of his marital community; o
n. "-T,
GABRIEL LARIOS, individually and on
behalf of his marital community; RAFAEL
LARIOS, individually and on half of his 5
marital community; CRUZ LAUREANO, CD
—183 Wash. 2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015).
No. 72595-5-1 / 3
allowed a trial court to resolve disputed factual matters and decide the merits of a
plaintiff's claim without a trial.3 Leenders's supplemental briefing asked this court
to dismiss Ayala's appeal on this basis.
Ayala acknowledges the unconstitutionality of RCW 4.24.525. But in
supplemental briefing, Ayala claims that RCW 4.24.5104 standing alone provides
an independent basis for this court to dismiss Leenders's lawsuit. That statute
provides immunity from civil suits based on a defendant's communications with
government entities "regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency
or organization."5 But Ayala asserted both in his motion to strike and in his
opening brief to this court that he was entitled to dismissal because Leenders
could not meet the "clear and convincing" evidence requirement of RCW
4.24.525(4)(b) to defeat Ayala's asserted immunity under RCW 4.24.510.
Ayala's argument both to the trial court and to this court regarding RCW 4.24.510
thus assumed RCW4.24.525's constitutionality.
For the first time in a supplemental brief, Ayala asserts that he is entitled
to dismissal as a matter of law under RCW 4.24.510, independent of RCW
4.24.525. This court generally will not review a claim not raised in the trial court.6
We decline to do so in this case.
3 Davis, 183 Wash. 2d at 288-96.
4 In its briefing, Ayala inadvertently cites to RCW 4.25.510 but refers to the
language of RCW 4.24.510.
5 RCW 4.24.510.
6 RAP 2.5(a).
No. 72595-5-1/4
Conclusion
We dismiss Ayala's appeal and remand to the trial court for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
J^ifr, /.
WE CONCUR: