Washington Courts

Sometime in the past year or two the Spokane County Commissioners used precious public funds to buy property west of downtown Spokane used as dragstrip and raceway.  In the business of dragstrips and raceways the county then leased the property to a person who makes a business of providing racing and dragstrips.  Of course, an accident happened.  Quite predictable one would think after all such activities are quite dangerous.

One day a few weeks ago a contractor was standing near a raceway talking to someone who was hiring his services.  Lo and behold a person racing a car found himself and the car running out of control.  The contractor was killed.

And now a case has been filed — the case includes Spokane County as a defendant.  More on this later.  The judge assigned to the case is Michael Price, a gubernatorial (Democratic) appointment to the court.  A Gonzaga Law School graduate and muscian whose legal experience prior to elevation to the court was domestic relations law.

The judge assigned to Hieber v. Spokane Country Club is the Hon, Maryann Moreno.  Moreno is an appointee to the court by the Governor of the State of Washington.  The governor at the time was a Democrat.  Moreno is a graduate of Gonzaga Law School, as most of the Spokane Superior Court judges are.  Previous to her appointment she was in private practice doing criminal defense and some domestic relations law.  I believe her husband may be a lawyer in the Spokane County Public Defender’s Office but I am not sure.

Reading the Heiber et al. v. Spokane Country Club et al. complaint one comes to the conclusion the plaintiffs are asserting several claims.  The complaint is not drafted so that the claims are immediately apparent.  The claims are as follows:

1. Discrimination in violation of RCW 49.60.030 - gender discrimination in public accommodation.

2. Gender discrimination in real estate transactions. RCW 49.60.222.

3. Consumer Protection, RCW Ch. 19.86 - violation of prohibition against deceptive acts and practices.

4. Breach of contract including violation of Spokane Country Club Bylaws -no rules to be made in violation of the laws of state of Washington.

5. Damages for illegal actions including damages for emotional distress, degradation, humiliation and embarassment.

Plaintiffs in the Spokane Country Club case assert the club has violated the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. RCW Ch. 19. 86.  The claim, as stated, probably does not state a cause of action.  That is, the complaint is probably deficient and subject to a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim motion.  Why say this?  Because in a consumer protection act case certain facts must be pled and proved. 

To prevail in a private Consumer Protection Act action, a plaintiff must establish five distinct elements: (1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; and (5) causation. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). “Implicit in the definition of `deceptive’ under the CPA is the understanding that the practice misleads or misrepresents something of material importance.” Holiday Resort Community Ass’n v. Echo Lake Assocs., LLC, 134 Wn. App. 210, 226, 135 P.3d 499 (2006).

It is not enough to say that unlawful discrimination under RCW Ch. 49.60 is, per se,a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.  All this does, it would seem, is to solve the “public interest” requirement of the various elements which must be pled and proved.

Hieber, Skaer and Van Noy v. The Spokane Country Club (Spokane County Cause No. 09203168-6, filed July 16, 2009) is a case brought by three female members of the Spokane Country Club for discrimination.  See the complaint here.