Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kenmore MHP LLC v. City of Kenmore

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 12, 2019

KENMORE MHP LLC, JIM PERKINS, and KENMORE VILLAGE MHO LLC, Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF KENMORE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, Defendants/Respondents.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND ONE CLAIM

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand One Claim. Dkt. 13. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining file.

         This case arises from the Defendant City of Kenmore's (“City”) adoption of Ordinance No. 19-0481 (“ordinance”), which is alleged to have created a ten-year moratorium on redevelopment of five properties within the City. Dkt. 14. In the pending motion, the Plaintiffs move to remand their first claim only to Thurston County, Washington Superior Court. Dkt. 13. For the reasons provided below, the motion (Dkt. 14) should be granted.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. FACTS

         The Plaintiffs in this case own three of the five properties effected by the ordinance, which was adopted by the City on April 15, 2019. Dkt. 14. They claim that the ordinance functionally “prohibits redevelopment” of their properties. Id. The Plaintiffs maintain that the ordinance “destroyed millions of dollars of value” in the properties and “hijacked” them for single use. Id.

         They challenged the adoption of the ordinance under the Growth Management Act (“GMA”) by filing a petition for review with the Defendant State of Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (“State Board”). Id. After the State Board granted summary judgment in favor of the City (based on the Plaintiffs' failure to properly comply with filing and service of process rules) and denied a motion to amend the petition, the Plaintiffs filed this case in Thurston County, Washington, Superior Court on September 27, 2019. Id. and Dkt. 1-2. In the Amended Complaint, they make the following claims: (1) violation of the Washington Administrative Procedures Act, RCW 34.05.570 (“APA”) relating to the State Board's decision to grant summary judgment and deny the motion to amend the petition (the Plaintiffs fail to designate which defendants this claim is asserted against. For purposes of this motion, the Court should construe the Amended Complaint as asserting the claim against both the State Board and City), (2) a claim for a declaration under the Washington Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW 7.24, et. seq., that the City's adoption of the ordinance constituted an unlawful moratorium under RCW 35.63.200, (3) violation of their substantive due process rights under the Washington State Constitution against the City, (4) violation of their rights against uncompensated takings under the Washington State Constitution against the City, and (5) violation of their substantive due process rights and their rights against uncompensated takings under the federal constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City. Dkt. 14. The Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) an order reversing the State Board's decisions, (2) an order declaring the rights and responsibilities of the parties “with regard to Ordinance 19-0481, ” (3) an order declaring Ordinance 19-0481 “to be unconstitutional, ” (4) just compensation under the Washington Constitution, (5) damages, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. Id.

         B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The City removed the case on October 24, 2019. Dkt. 1. The City maintains this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the federal claims asserted and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Dkt. 1. The Notice of Removal does not indicate whether the State Board consented to, or joined in, the removal. Id.

         On November 13, 2019, the Washington State Attorney General's office filed a letter, stating that it was representing the State Board. Dkt. 12. The letter further provides:

The Board is a quasi-judicial body, and as such is generally not a litigant in the judicial review. We anticipate the parties who appeared before the Board will continue to advocate their respective positions in this judicial review.
Although [the undersigned assistant attorney general] ha[s] entered a notice of appearance, [she does] not foresee participating in prehearing motions, briefing, or final argument, unless [her] participation becomes necessary. . . Therefore, in order to conserve resources, [she asks] that, instead of serving on [her] all papers as required by court rules, you simply email the briefs and orders to [her].

Dkt. 12.

         The next day, the Plaintiffs filed the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.