IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
S. MICHAEL KUNATH,

)
)
Respondent/Cross Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SEATTLE,
)
)
Appellant/Cross Respondent,
)
)
)
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
)
INSTITUTE,
)
)
Appellant/Cross Respondent,
)
)
)
)
SUZIE BURKE, an individual; GENE BURRUS )
and LEAH BURRUS, as individuals and the
)
marital community comprised thereof, PAIGE )
DAVIS, an individual; FAYE GARNEAU, an
)
individual; KRISTI DALE HOOFMAN, an
)
individual; LEWIS M. HOROWITZ, an
)
individual; TERESA JONES and NIGEL
)
JONES, as individuals and the marital
)
community comprised thereof; NICK LUCIO
)
and JESSICA LUCIO, as individuals and the )
marital community comprised thereof; LINDA )
R. MITCHELL, an individual; ERIKA KRISTINA )
NAGY, an individual; DON ROOT, an
)
individual; LISA STERRITT and BRENT
)
STERRITT, as individuals and the marital
)
community comprised thereof; and NORMA
)
TSUBOI, an individual,
)
)
Respondents,
)

No. 79447-7-I

 v.

)
)
CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipality; SEATTLE )
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a department )
of the City of Seattle; and FRED PODESTA, )
Director of the Seattle Department of Finance )
and Administrative Services, in his official
)
capacity,
)
)
Appellants.
)
)
)
DENA LEVINE, an individual,
)
CHRISTOPHER RUFO, an individual;
)
MARTIN TOBIAS, an individual; NICHOLAS )
KERR, an individual; CHRIS MCKENZIE, an )
individual,
)
)
Respondents,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, )
)
Appellant.
)
)
)
SCOTT SHOCK; SALLY OLJAR; STEVE
)
DAVIES; JOHN PALMER,
)
)
Respondents,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington
)
municipal corporation,
)
)
Appellant.
)
)

2

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REQUEST FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT

 Respondents Levine and Burke filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion
filed July 15, 2019. The panel requested and received answers from appellants City of
Seattle and Economic Opportunity Institute. The panel also accepted a reply from
Levine and Burke, who requested oral argument. The panel has determined that the
motion for reconsideration and the request for oral argument be denied.
Now therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondents Levine and Burke’s motion for reconsideration is
denied. It is further
ORDERED that the request for oral argument is denied.
FOR THE PANEL:

3