The Honorable Timothy A. Bradshaw
Note for Motion: September 7,2018 @ 11:00 a.m.
With Oral Argument

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING

7
8

JAMES EGAN, individually,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington
municipal corporation,

17
18
19
20

MOTION TO DISMISS MR. EGAN'S
COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST,

15
16

18-2-14942-8SEA

Defendant.

13
14

No.

Plaintiff,

No.

18-2-15000-1SEA

v.
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF
SEATTLE, LISA HERBOLD, BRUCE
HARRELL, KSHAMA SAWANT, ROB
JOHNSON, DEBORA JUAREZ, MIKE
O'BRIEN, SALLY BAGSHAW, TERESA
MOSQUEDA, LORENA GONZALES,
Defendants.

21
22
23
MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT - 1

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 I.

1

RELIEF REQUESTED

2

The City of Seattle, the sole defendant in Mr. Egan's lawsuit,' moves to dismiss Mr. Egan's

3

Complaint in this case pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) because his Complaint fails to state a claim upon

4

which relief can be granted against the lone defendant he has sued. In short, because Mr. Egan only

5

seeks relief against unnamed individual City Councilmembers whom he alleges violated the Open

6

Public Meetings Act (OPMA) but has chosen not to name them as defendants in his case, dismissal

7

is warranted because Mr. Egan cannot obtain the only relief he requests.
II.

8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9

Mr. Egan's Complaint alleges that eight of the nine members of the Seattle City Council, as

10

well as the Mayor, violated the OPMA, Ch. 42.30 RCW, in the days leading up to the City Council's

11

June 12, 2018, special meeting. At that meeting, Council passed Ordinance 125592, repealing the

12

Employee Hours Tax (EHT) that Council had passed in May 2018. See Dkt. #1.2 His Complaint also

13

alleges that at least one councilmember violated the OPMA in July 2017 in connection with

14

discussions regarding whether to remove then-Mayor Ed Murray from office. The only named

15

defendant in Mr. Egan's Complaint is the City of Seattle; no individual elected officials are named as

16

parties. In his Prayer for Relief, Mr. Egan asks only for the civil penalties authorized by RCW

17

42.30.120, while specifically stating that he does not seek invalidation of Ordinance 125592. In sharp

18

contrast, a lawsuit filed by Arthur West individually names each Councilmember (as well as the City)

19

and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See West's Complaint.3

20
21
22
23

On July 13, 2018, Mr. Egan's case was consolidated with a related case brought by Arthur West. See Dkt. #16. For ease
of reference, the City attaches the Order consolidated the above-captioned cases as Attachment A. To be clear, the City
does not seek dismissal of Mr. West's Complaint at this time.
Attachment B.
2 For ease of reference, the City attaches Mr. Egan's Complaint as
This Court can take judicial notice of Mr. West's Complaint, which was filed in Cause No. 18-2-15000-1SEA. See ER
201(b). For ease of reference, the City attaches Mr. West's Complaint as Attachment C.

3

MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -2

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 III.

1

Whether Mr. Egan's Complaint should be dismissed when Egan has named only the City of

2
3

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Seattle as a party but does not seek relief that can be granted against the City.
IV.

4

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

This Motion relies on the pleadings and papers on file in this action.

5

V.

6

AUTHORITY

7

The OPMA provides for three types of legal relief if a court finds a violation: (1) civil penalties

8

for which members of a governing body are personally liable if they knowingly violate the OPMA,

9

RCW 42.30.120, (2) mandamus or injunctive relief to prevent future threatened violations of the

10

OPMA, RCW 42.30.130, and (3) voiding of an action taken at a meeting that occurs in violation of

11

the OPMA, RCW 42.30.060. Mr. Egan's Complaint clearly states that he does not seek invalidation

12

of Ordinance 125592, see Egan Complaint at 3, and it does not reference injunctive or mandamus

13

relief. The only relief the Complaint requests are civil penalties under RCW 42.30.120, which the

14

OPMA explicitly defines as the "personal liability" of a governing body member.

15

It is axiomatic that a court cannot enter judgment against a party who is not before the court.

16

See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761-62 (1989) ("All agree that Tit is a principle of general

17

application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a

18

litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service

19

of process.') (quoting Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940)); quoted by City of Seattle v.

20

Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d 492, 502-03, 909 P.2d 1294 (1996).4 While there are "certain limited

21
22
23

Although the specific result in Martin v. Wilkes was abrogated by statute, that statutory abrogation is limited to the
specific type of case at issue in Martin — consent decrees in employment discrimination cases — and the "general principles
of privity and claim preclusion" that relate to the proper parties in a case remain valid. Loveridge v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 72
Wn. App. 720, 728, 864 P.2d 417 (1993), affirmed by 125 Wn.2d 759, 887 P.2d 898 (1995).

4

MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -3

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 circumstances" where this rule does not apply, i.e., when "the interests of the nonparty must be
2

adequately represented by a party with the same interests," Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d at 503, those

3

circumstances do not apply here because the City and individual elected officials are subject to

4

different types of relief under the OPMA. The text of the OPMA makes plain that to the extent a court

5

finds a knowing violation of the OPMA, the individual members of a governing body who knowingly

6

violate the OPMA, not the public entity itself, are liable for the civil penalty. Egan has not named any

7

individual governing body members as defendants, yet he exclusively seeks relief that can only be

8

granted against individual governing body members, not the City as an entity. Therefore, he has not

9

stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against the only defendant he sued, and his Complaint

10

should be dismissed.

11

What is more, naming the individual City Councilmembers is no mere formality - unless one

12

eschews the notion that jurisdiction is "a fundamental building block of law." ZDI Gaming, Inc. v.

13

State, 173, Wn.2d 608, 616, 268 P3d 929, 933 (2012). Mr. Egan himself understands that individual

14

Councilmembers must be named in order for him to pursue the only relief he seeks—a finding that

15

individual Councilmembers knowingly violated the OPMA with a concomitant statutory penalty for

16

each member found to have done so. For example, in Mr. Egan's Joinder on the City's Motion to

17

Consolidate the Egan and West matters, Mr. Egan expressly noted that "one of the reasons the

18

councilmembers are not individually named as defendants in the Egan matter is that not all of their

19

identities are know [sic] at this point." See Dkt. #15, at 25. In this case, naming the individual members

20

is particularly important with respect to Mr. Egan's Complaint because in addition to claiming (like

21

Mr. West) that individual Councilmembers knowingly violated the OPMA with respect to the EHT,

22
23

The Court can take judicial notice of Mr. Egan's Joinder. See ER 201(b). For ease of reference, the City attaches Mr.
Egan's Joinder at Attachment D.

5

MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -4

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 1

he further alleges that unnamed Councilmembers violated the OPMA with respect to issues related to

2

former Mayor Ed Murray. Thus, any claim that because Mr. West has named the individual

3

Councilmembers in a lawsuit that is now consolidated with Mr. Egan's that there is no need to name

4

the individual Councilmembers rings hollow because Mr. Egan advances claims that Mr. West does

5

not pursue.

6

At bottom, Mr. Egan's Complaint should be dismissed because he seeks relief that can only

7

be sought against individual Councilmembers and by failing to name those individual

8

Councilmembers there is no way for this Court to enter a judgment against them in Mr. Egan's case.

9

Consequently, because Mr. Egan cannot obtain any of his requested relief dismissal is warranted.
VI.

10
11
12

For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and
issue an order Egan's Complaint. A proposed order is provided.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

13
14
15

CONCLUSION

I certify that this Motion to Dismiss contains 1,236 words in compliance with the Local Civil
Rules of the King County Superior Court as amended September 1, 2016.

16

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of August, 2018.

17

PETER S. HOLMES
Seattle City Attorney

18
By:/s/Michael K Ryan
Michael K. Ryan, WSBA #32091
Peter S. Holmes, WSBA #15787
Gary Smith, WSBA #29718
Seattle City Attorney's Office
E-Mail: michael.ryan@seattle.gov
E-Mail: peter.holmesAseattle.gov
E-Mail: gary.smith@seattle.gov

19
20
21
22
23
MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -5

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 Seattle City Attorney's Office
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 684-8200

1
2
3

Attorneys for Defendant City of Seattle

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -6

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

I certify that on the 8th day of August, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of this document
to be served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Lincoln Beauregard
Julie A. Kays
Connelly Law Offices, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
Attorneys for Plaintiff

( ) U.S. Mail
( ) ABC Legal Messengers
(X) Via Email
lincolnb@connelly-law.com
ikays@connelly-law.com

Arthur West
120 State Ave. N.E., #1497
Olympia, WA 98501
Pro Se Plaintiff

( ) U.S. Mail
( ) ABC Legal Messengers
(X) Via Email

12
Is/ Janet Francisco
Janet Francisco, Paralegal

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MOTION TO DISMISS
EGAN COMPLAINT -7

Peter S. Holmes
Seattle City Attorney
701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050
Seattle, WA 98104-7097
(206) 684-8200

 ATTACHMENT A

FILED

18 JUL 13 PM 4:01
1

KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLE K
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 18-2-14942 SEA

2
3
4
5
6

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR

7

COUNTY OF KING

8
9

EGAN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

vs.

CITY OF SEATTLE,

No. 18-2-14942-8 SEA
ORDER ON CONSOLIDATION
[Clerk's Action Required]

Defendant(s)

14
15

This matter is now before the court on Defendant's Motion for Consolidation, and

16

Plaintiffs Joinder. Specifically, the parties seek that West v. Seattle City Council, et al.,
cause No. 18-2-15000-1 SEA, be consolidated with the above captioned case because

17
18
19

both involve the same central issue (the OPMA).
Pursuant LCR 42(a), the court hereby GRANTS the joint Motion in the interest of

20

judicial economy. Accordingly, the two matters are hereby consolidated before Judge

21

Timothy Bradshaw, Dept. 01, and under the above cause number.

22

DATED this

day of July, 2018.

23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Honorable Ken Schubert,
ChiefCivil Judge

 King County Superior Court
Judicial Electronic Signature Page
18-2-14942-8

Case Number:
Case Title:

EGAN VS SEATTLE CITY OF

Document Title:

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

Signed by:
Date:

Ken Schubert
7/13/2018 4:01:55 PM

Judge/Commissioner: Ken Schubert

This document is signed in accordance with the provisions in GR 30.
B3CCC17BEB9A4E74398B810537AC5D3A185E71B8
Certificate Hash:
Certificate effective date: 7/29/2013 12:37:57 PM
Certificate expiry date:
7/29/2018 12:37:57 PM
Certificate Issued by:
c=uS, E=Icescefiling@kingcounty.gov, OU=KCDJA,
0=KCDJA, CN="Ken
SchubertrumaiXr44hGoUlcM4YYhwmw=="

Page 2 of 2

 ATTAC 

FILED
18 JUN 14 AM 9:00
1

KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 18-2-14942-8 S

2
3
4
5
6

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

7
8
9

JAMES EGAN, individually,

10
11
12

V.

17
18
19
20
21
22

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: OPEN
PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
VIOLATIONS

Defendant

14

16

Plaintiff,

CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal
corporation,

13

15

NO.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards,
councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all
other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the
conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their
actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their
public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed
so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
Open Public Meetings Act Legislative Declaration, RCW 42.30.010

23
24
25
26

COMPLAINT - 1 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 I.

1
2

1.

PARTIES

Plaintiff James Egan is a resident of the City of Seattle and a recognized

3

attorney within the State of Washington. Through this lawsuit, Mr. Egan is not challenging

4

the ultimate vote, and repeal, of the head tax ordinance because the ultimate vote was taken in

5
6
7

a public forum. The interested parties and advocates hereto, including the undersigned
attorneys, stand in strong belief that the head tax should never have been enacted. This

8

lawsuit challenges compliance with the law with the intent of ensuring lawful public debate in

9

the future.

10

2.

Defendant City of Seattle is a municipal corporation within the State of

11

Washington and the employer of the offending Mayor, Jenny Durkan, and the offending City

12

Councilmembers at issue, Bruce Harrell, Sally Bagshaw, Lorena Gonzalez, Lisa Herbold, Rob

13
14
15
16

Johnson, Deborah Juarez, Teresa Mosqueda, and Mike O'Brien. Councilmember Kshama
Sawant's actions are not currently at issue in this case, as she was apparently left out of the
communications that are the subject of these violations.
II.

17
18

3.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The background facts giving rise to this lawsuit are well known to the citizens

19

of Seattle. Without sensible consideration, on May 14, 2018, the City Council unanimously

20

passed an ordinance commonly known as the "head tax" imposing a $275 annual fee per

21
22

employee upon the region's most prosperous for profit corporations. These elected officials

23

argued that these corporations are so rich that it was appropriate to single them out and

24

increase their tax burden to increase revenues for dealing with the homelessness crisis. At the

25

same time, there was no agreement and/or plan on how to utilize the newly generated revenue.

26

Mayor Durkan willing signed the ordinance into law. Councilmember Gonzalez publicly
COMPLAINT -2 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30' Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

characterized Mayor Durkan as an Amazon pawn during the preceding deliberations that

2

lowered the original proposal from $500 to $275 per head.

3
4
5
6
7

4.

According to the Seattle Times, in email, Councilwoman M. Lorena Gonzalez

said she spoke Sunday night with Councilwoman Lisa Herbold about the potential of a headtax repeal based on reports on the public polling. She also said she spoke Sunday evening
with Deputy Mayor Shefali Ranganathan, who asked her to sign the joint statement, which
She said she only became "aware of the

8

Gonzalez' staff reviewed Monday morning,

9

possibility of a Special Meeting" during a "properly noticed" executive session at the

10

council's briefing on Monday. "I am unaware of any facts related to other councilmembers'

11

alleged discussions with each other or the Mayor on this meeting notice issue," Gonzalez said

12
13
14
15

n her email.
5.

According to the Seattle Times, Councilmember Rob Johnson said in a phone

call late Tuesday afternoon that he learned from Harrell early Monday — a day before the

16

vote — that a council majority seemingly supported a repeal. Johnson said he'd been out of

17

town from Thursday through Sunday, first learning of the special meeting Monday during his

18

brief talk with Harrell. "The Council President walked into my office and said, 'While you've

19

been away, these are the discussions we've been having. We're going to put this on the

20
21
22

agenda for Tuesday 'and consider a repeal, and it looks like we have the votes to do it,"
Johnson recounted. "That was the first I'd heard about it, so I wasn't involved in any prior

23

conversations." Later Monday morning, Johnson said Harrell and Durkan asked him to be

24

part of the joint statement, providing him with some draft language, which Johnson said he

25

approved.

26
COMPLAINT - 3 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 6.

According to the Seattle Times, Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, one of the

2

mayor's seven, also seemed to suggest the latter scenario occurred. "I was at the beach

3

minding my own business and I got a call from the mayor's office letting me know that she

4

already had heard from a number of my council colleagues that this was going to be on the

5
6
7

agenda," Bagshaw said in an interview Monday. Councilmember Bagshaw is believed to
have previously violated the Open Public Records Act during an attempt to curtail a possible

8

impeachment of former Mayor Ed Murray, informing the Mayor's advisor, "I think we will

9

get 5 votes...I think you will like it." All of these violations are the subject of this complaint.

10

7.

Without any open debate, and with the pressure of a repeal referendum

11

growing, on June 11, 2018 at 12:09 p.m., the City Council, by and through Councilmember

12

Harrell, announced an intention to conduct a repeal vote on June 12, 2018. The notice was

13
14
15

late and violated the open public meetings act requirements. Prior to the announcement, it
was expressed and understood that Mayor Jenny Durkan, along with the City

16

Councilmembers at issue, Bruce Harrell, Sally Bagshaw, Lorena Gonzalez, Lisa Herbold, Rob

17

Johnson, Deborah Juarez, and Mike O'Brien, had reached an agreement, via unlawful

18

clandestine discussions, to repeal the original ordinance enacting the head tax. Later that day,

19

the Seattle Times published an article, referencing multiple experts on the topic, highlighting

20
21
22
23

the assorted violations.
III.
8.

CAUSE OF ACTION: OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT VIOLATIONS
As described herein, Mayor

Jenny Durkan,

along

with

the City

24

Councilmembers at issue, Bruce Harrell, Sally Bagshaw, Lorena Gonzalez, Lisa Herbold, Rob

25

Johnson, Deborah Juarez, and Mike O'Brien repeatedly violated the Open Public Meetings

26

Act codified under RCW Chapter 42.30. The spirit, letter, and purpose of the Open Public
COMPLAINT -4 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Meetings Act is to prevent precisely the type of hidden debate as occurred during these

2

impulsive political proceedings: "(1) No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any

3

ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to the

4

public and then only at a meeting, the date of which is fixed by law or rule, or at a meeting

5

at
which notice has been given according to the provisions of this chapter. Any action taken

6
7

of

meetings failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be null and void... (2)

8

shall
No governing body of a public agency at any meeting required to be open to the public

9

vote by secret ballot. Any vote taken in violation of this subsection shall be null and void, and

10

shall be considered an 'action' under this chapter." RCW 42.30.060.

11
12
13
14
15

IV.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendants in the form of all
relief permitted under RCW 42.30.120 described as: "(1) Each member of the governing body
who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any

16

provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting

17

is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the

18

amount of five hundred dollars for the first violation. (2) Each member of the governing body

19

who attends a meeting of a governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision

20

of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in

21
22

violation thereof, and who was previously assessed a penalty under subsection (1) of this

23

section in a final court judgment, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil

24

penalty in the amount of one thousand dollars for any subsequent violation. (3) The civil

25

penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty

26

may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and
COMPLAINT - 5 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 301 Street
Tacoma, WA 98403
(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal

2

disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense. (4) Any person who prevails against

3

a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all

4

costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action.

5
6
7

Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency which prevails in any action in the courts for a
violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final

8

judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced

9

without reasonable cause." To be clear, this lawsuit does not challenge the legitimacy of the

10

ultimate vote, only the clandestine tallying and debate.

11
12

DATED this 13th day of June, 2018.

13

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC

14

LiAcolvv 13 eauregardi

15

By&
Lincoln C. Beauregard, WSBA No. 32878
Julie A. Kays, WSBA No. 30385
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
COMPLAINT - 6 of 6

CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 ATTAC i" 

FILED

18 JUN 14 PM 4:06
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
18-2-15000-1 SEA
NUMBER:
CASE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
)
)
ARTHUR WEST,.
plaintiff,
)
Vs.
)
)
)
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL,
CITY OF SEATTLE, LISA
)
)
HARRELL,
HERBOLD, BRUCE
)
KSHAMA SAWANT, ROB
)
JOHNSON, DEBORA JUAREZ,
)
MIKE O'BRIEN, SALLY
)
BAGSHAW, THERESA
)
MOSQUEDA,
defendants
)
)

No.
PLAINTIFF'S
ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT
FOR VIOLATION
OF THE OPMA

INTRODUCTION

1.1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning violation of the
OPMA by the Seattle City Council in a series of serial communications or "meetings" and the
actions of the Council in deliberating and taking final action on June 12, 2018 outside the context
of a properly announced open public meeting.

1.2. The plainfiff alleges that, as reported by the media, a quorum of the the Seattle City
Council apparently conducted series of "serial communications" or "meetings" in violation of
the Open Public Meetings Act, and failed to give proper notice of a special meeting set for June
, PLAINTIFF'S
ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST
120 State Avenue NE #1497
Olympia, WA, 98501

 12, 2018, resulting in a "final action" on June 12, 2018 concerning a controversial corporate
"Head Tax" that should be invalidated due to the City's failure to comply with the Act
II PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

2.1. Plaintiff West is "any person" as defined in RCW 42.30.130 with standing to seek
relief. (See West v. Seattle Port Commission, West v. Pierce County Council)

2.2. Defendant Seattle City Council is a "governing body" as defined in RCW 4130.020
that has, between the dates of June 1" and June 12th, violated the Open Public Meetings Act by
conducting unlawful "meetings" and by deliberating and by taking "action" and "final action" as
defined in RCW 42.30.020 in a series of serial communications and "meetings".
2.3. Defendant Seattle City Council members Lisa Herb°Id, Bruce Harrel, Kshama
Sawant, Rob Johnson, Debora Juarez, Mike O'Brien, Sally Bagshaw, and Teresa Mosqueda are
members of a public agency that violated the OF'MA by knowingly and deliberately taking
"action" outside the context of a properly scheduled open public meeting.
2.4. Defendant City of Seattle is a municipla entity required to abide by the requirements
of the Laws of the State of Washington, including the Open Public Meetings Act.
2.5. The King County Superior Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter
of this claim.
III ALLEGATIONS
3.1. On or about May 14, 2018 the Seattle City Council enacted a controversial corporate
"Head Tax" on the employees of large companies, apparently to address homeless issues.
3.2. The Head Tax spawned significant political opposition, and a majority of the council
subsequently determined, apparently outside of the context of an open public meeting, that the
Head Tax should be repealed.
3.3. Between June 1" and June 12th, (and on other dates that may be shown after
discovery) the a quorum of the Seattle City Council conducted a series of actual and/or serial
"meetings" through which a quorum of the Council took "action" as defined in RCW 42,30.020

2

PLAINTIFF'S'
ORIGINAL
; COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST
120 State Avenue NE #1497
Olympia, WA. 98501

 (3)1 in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), A quorum of the Council members
participated in these "meetings'.
3.4. The "meetings" were deliberately scheduled in the absence of proper notice or other
lawful compliance with the OPMA.
3.5. By their actions and ommisions, Seattle City Council members Lisa Herbold, Bruce
Harrell, Kshama Sawant, Rob Johnson, Debora Juarez, Mike O'Brien, Sally Bagshaw, and Teresa
Mosqueda knowingly and deliberately violated the OPMA.
3.6, The Council failed to provide adequate notice of the special meeting of June 12,
2018.
3.7. The final action taken on June 12, 2018 is void due to the failure of the Council to
comply with the OPMA.
3.8. Plaintiff West is a customer of the Amazon corporation, and is specially impacted by
the imposition and repeal of discriminatory taxes levied upon the Amazon corporation.
3.9 A present case and controversy exists concerning whether the OPMA may be violated
by a series of serial communications that is subject to adjudication under the Uniform
Declaratory Judgments Act.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
4.1. OPMA CLAIM FOR PENALTIES, FEES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
By their acts and omissions defendants created a cause of action under RCW 42.30 for
penalties, costs, fees, and injunctive relief in regard to violations of the OPMA by a quorum of
the governing body of the Seattle City Council, and plaintiff is entitled, under RCW 42.30 and
CR 65, to the relief sought below.

"Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including
but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews,
evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual
vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion,
proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.
2 "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken. (See RCW 4230,020 (3))
ARTHUR WEST
3 1 PLAINTIFF'S
ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT

120 State Avenue NE #1497
Olympia, WA. 98501

 4.2. UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT (RCW 7.24)
By their acts and omissions defendants, and each of them, created an uncertainty in the
conduct of public officers and compliance with the OPMA, and a cause of action for a
declaratory judgment in regard to whether the OPMA was violated by defendants' series of serial
communications and/or meetings. Such declaration will conclusively terminate the controversy
giving rise to this proceeding.
4.3. WRITS OF MAIsTDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
By their acts and omissions defendants created a cause of action for statutory and
constitutional writs of mandamus and prohibition for which there is no adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, and for which plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought below.
V REQUEST FOR RELIEF
5.1. That the action of the Seattle City Council of June 12, 2018 repealing the Corporate
Head Tax be invalidated due to the failure of the City Council to compy with the OPMA.
5.2. That a declaratory ruling issue declaring that the a quorum of Seattle City Council
violated the Open Public Meetings Act.
5.3. That a declaratory ruling issue that defendants violated the OPMA by deliberately
conducting a series of secret serial meetings personally, by telephone, Email, or by other
electronic means.
5.4. That an injunction and/or a writ of mandamus or prohibition issue to all of the named
parties barring further such violations of the OPMA, and that any Council members found to
have knowingly violated the OPMA be fined the princely sum of $500 for each violation.
5.5. That plaintiff be awarded costs, and any applicable attorney fees.
Done June 14, 2018, in Olympia, Washington.

4;

PLAINTIFF'S
ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT

ARTHUR WEST
120 State Avenue NE #1497
Olympia, WA. 98501

 TTAC 

FILED

18 JUL 11 AM 11:21
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
18-2-14942-8 S
NUMBER:
CASE

1
2
3
4
5

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

6
7
8
9
10
11

JAMES EGAN, individually,
v.

NO. 18-2-14942-8 SEA
Plaintiff,

CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal
corporation,

12

PLAINTIFF EGAN'S JOINDER IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE'S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
HEARING DATE: JUNE 23, 2018

Defendant.

13
14
15

ARTHUR WEST,

17
18
19

NO. 18-2-15000-1 SEA

Plaintiff,

16

v.
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL, et al.,
Defendant.

20
21

I.

JOINDER

22

Pursuant to CR 42, Plaintiff James Egan joins in the City of Seattle's motion to

23

consolidate these pending matters. In the interest of judicial economy these matters should be

24
25
26

joined. Furthermore, because the plaintiffs in Egan and West are contemporaneously seeking
relief in the form of a judicial finding that the elected officials at issue violated the Open
PLTF EGAN'S JOINDER IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 1 of 3

LONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

Public Meetings Act, principles of collateral estoppel demand that these matters be joined.

2

Further, Plaintiff Egan joins with City's motion in relation to the undersigned counsel's great

3

confidence that either judicial department, Judge Bradshaw and/or Judge North, can

4

impartially and fairly referee and rule upon this politically charged proceeding.

5
6
7

A relevant point for the Court to consider in relation to consolidation is that while "the
bulk of [the] Complaint" references alleged Open Public Meetings Act violations related to

8

the "head tax," Plaintiff Egan intends upon conducting an extensive inquiry into the

9

allegations related to Councilmember Bagshaw leading an effort to rally and tally votes,

10

illegally and behind the scenes, in order to protect and keep in office an alleged child

11

molester, former Mayor Ed Murray.' It has been widely reported that Councilmember

12

Bagshaw, and yet to be fully identified councilmembers, worked together to conjure a quorum

13
14
15

of votes to stave of an impending mayoral recall effort.3 On January 31, 2018, the Seattle
Times reported on the topic:

17

His chief of staff, Mike Fong, quickly gauged support for Murray among
other council members. Bagshaw assured him in a text that a "response to
Lorena is circulating."

18

"I think we will get 5 votes," she added. "I think you will like it."

19

"Thank you. This is very helpful and supportive," Fong texted back. "It will
help put some brakes on what was starting to look like a runaway train."

16

20
21

"Shame on those who want a political witch hunt for their own political
gain," Bagshaw responded.4

22
23
24
25
26

City's Motion, Page 4 Footnote 3
2 See Egan Complaint, Paragraph 6
Egan matter is that not
3 One of the reasons the councilmembers are not individually named as defendants in the
all of their identities are know at this point.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/texts-and-emails-reveal-behind-the-scenes-battles4
as-ed-munay-tried-to-save-his-career-as-seattle-mayor/
PLTF EGAN'S JOINDER IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE -2 of 3
LONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 306, Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax

 1

The originating allegations in the Egan Complaint might be understated, but the

2

degree to which this component of the lawsuit will play an integral role in these proceedings

3

should not be discounted when considering the propriety of consolidation with the West

4

matter. In accord with the civil rules, and consistent with the purpose of the Open Public

5
6
7

Meetings Act, Mr. Egan, and the undersigned attorneys, intend a full vetting and public airing
of the alleged violations. To the extent that a quorum of councilmembers deemed it fit to

8

arrange for the sitting mayor, and alleged child molester, to remain in a position of power, the

9

public has a right to full information, and an appropriate judicial evaluation. Doing so is the

10

express purpose of the Open Public Meetings Act. See RCW 42.30.010.

11

II.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION

Mr. Egan joins with the City of Seattle in relation to the motion for consolidation with
the West matter currently pending before Judge North.
DATED this 11th day of June, 2018.
CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC

LiAcolvv Beauregard,

By&
Lincoln C. Beauregard, WSBA No. 32878
Julie A. Kays, WSBA No. 30385
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21
22
23
24
25
26
PLTF EGAN'S JOINDER IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE -3 of 3

LONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
2301 North 304, Street
Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0380 Fax