1
2
3

FILED

Hearing
2020 JAN 31 03:57
PMdate: February 7, 2020
Hearing
KING COUNTY time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge/Calendar:
SUPERIOR COURT
CLERK Hon. Marshall Ferguson
E-FILED
CASE #: 19-2-30171-6 SEA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
)
GARFIELD COUNTY
)
TRANSPORTION AUTHORITY; et al,
)
CASE NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA
)
Plaintiffs,
)
INTERVENOR DIDIER’S
and
)
REPLY ON SUMMARY
)
JUDGMENT
WASHINGTON ADAPT,
)
)
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
and
)
)
CLINT DIDIER; PERMANENT
)
OFFENSE; TIMOTHY D. EYMAN;
)
MICHAEL FAGAN; JACK FAGAN; and )
PIERCE COUNTY,
)
)
Intervenor-Defendants
)
___________________________________ )
Plaintiffs are without a justiciable controversy in this case, as neither they nor their

21

bootstrapped non-parties can assert any damages whatsoever prior to the time that

22

Initiative 976 becomes law. Their status remains the same as it was before I-976 was
INTERVENOR DIDIER’S REPLY ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
STEPHEN W. PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.
1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C-350
Everett, Washington 98208
(425)347-7513

 1

approved by the voters. Plaintiffs’ action should be summarily dismissed since the

2

particular damages which are asserted by plaintiffs have not been implemented and their

3

claim is speculative. Snohomish Cty. v. Anderson, 124 Wn.2d 834, 840, 881 P.2d 240

4

(1994). Plaintiffs claims are non-justiciable. Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 43 P.

5

3d 471, 475 (Washington Supreme Court)( 2002), quoting First United Methodist Church

6

of Seattle v. Hearing Exam'r, 129 Wash.2d 238, 245, 916 P.2d 374 (1996) (quoting First

7

Covenant Church v. City of Seattle, 114 Wash.2d 392, 398, 787 P.2d 1352 (1990) (quoting

8

Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137 (1973).

9

Plaintiffs’ assertions of bond impairment and impairment of contracts requires

10

evidence of said bonds and contracts, all of which are subject to adjudication by a trier of

11

fact. Intervenor objects to all evidence of bonds and contracts belonging to Sound Transit,

12

the City of Burien, and all other plaintiffs, including any oral contracts, on the basis of the

13

failure to establish admissibility or an evidentiary foundation for the admission of said

14

bonds or contracts. This evidence is at issue, and summary judgment does not lie if

15

material facts are at issue. CR 56.

16

Plaintiffs argue impairment of contracts in violation of Article I, Section 23 of

17

Washington’s Constitution. Any impairment issue requires a trier of fact to determine the

18

credibility and validity of the asserted evidence to determine facts at issue. The trier of fact

19

must first examine whether a contractual relationship actually exists. This requires the trier

20

of fact to determine a material issue, precluding summary judgment. The trier of fact must

21

also determine whether the legislation substantially impairs the contractual relationship.

22

Again, this requires the trier of fact to determine a material issue, precluding summary

INTERVENOR DIDIER’S REPLY ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
STEPHEN W. PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.
1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C-350
Everett, Washington 98208
(425)347-7513

 1

judgment. Finally, the trier of fact must determine if there is a substantial impairment of

2

said contract, which again requires the trier of fact to determine a material issue,

3

precluding summary judgment. See Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234,

4

244 n. 15, 57 L.Ed.2d 727, 98 S.Ct. 2716 (1978). Accord Caritas Servs., Inc. v.

5

Department of Social & Health Servs., 123 Wn.2d 391, 402-03, 869 P.2d 28 (1994).

6

Because plaintiffs have asserted contracts, summary judgment does not lie because

7

material issues are present. CR 56.

8
9
10

However, I-976 does not impair the contracts alleged by the plaintiffs at all, given
that I-976 is not yet law.
Plaintiffs ask this court to assert its opinion above the opinion of over a million

11

Washington voters who were properly and lawfully briefed on the Initiative and its

12

expected impact. Plaintiffs can neither construct a duty nor impose a burden on the

13

sponsors of this initiative which cannot be found in the Constitution of the State of

14

Washington, because this court does not have the constitutional authority to exceed the

15

expression of the people in a lawful election; rather, the court may only adjudicate the

16

discrepancies between what the people have established as the governing authority within

17

their Constitution, and the acts they have taken to govern themselves in a duly-passed

18

initiative. Article I, Section 1, Constitution of the State of Washington.

19

Intervenor, conversely, has set forth no factual issues requiring the adjudication of

20

this court or any other trier of fact. Instead, the declaration of Clint Didier sets forth the

21

election results, admissible pursuant to ER 803(a)(8), to which there has been no objection

22

nor counter argument even raised, and of course, the information contained in the Voters

INTERVENOR DIDIER’S REPLY ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3
STEPHEN W. PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.
1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C-350
Everett, Washington 98208
(425)347-7513

 1

Pamphlet in all relevant parts concerning Initiative 976 (which included the entirety of the

2

text of the initiative), admissible pursuant to ER 803(a)(8). Again, no objection was raised,

3

nor any counter argument set forth.

4

As a result, in respect of Intervenor’s Motion for Summary Judgment, there are no

5

material issues present, and Intervenor is deserving of summary judgment as a matter of

6

fact; Plaintiffs have failed to meet their high threshold burden of proof to establish that I-

7

976 in unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt, and I-976 is presumed constitutional.

8

Therefore, Intervenor is deserving of summary judgment as a matter of law.

9

Dated this 31st day of January 2020.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

INTERVENOR DIDIER’S REPLY ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4
STEPHEN W. PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S.
1523 132nd Street SE, Suite C-350
Everett, Washington 98208
(425)347-7513