|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
City of Spokane, et al., Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate
and Intervene
Not an official copy.
Honorable Christine A. Pomeroy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR THURSTON COUNTY
THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, et. al., Plaintiffs vs. THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, et. al, Defendants.
Thurston County Cause no. 00 2 02068 3
CITY OF SPOKANE ET AL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
INTERVENE
INCORPORATION OF OTHER MEMORANDA
Not much can be said on the applicable law not already offered to the Court
in prior arguments. Being on the eastern side of Washington state, there is
some initial coordination lag time making it difficult for eastern Washington
Defendants participate initially in what are identical issues confronting state
and local governments and the citizens of the State of Washington served by
utility and governmental services provided by said local governments. Whether
I 722 was a good policy choice or not is not the point of Plaintiff’s litigation
posture. The issues are rather
1) whether I 722 follows the basic state constitutional requirements so that
it can be enforced or whether it is unconstitutional as its parallel enactment,
I 695 and, before that question can be reached,
2) whether there are common issues of law and fact making it expedient to
allow joinder of the pending Spokane County law suit and intervention of the
additional eastern Washington parties an application of the pending injunction
until the constitutionality of I 722 can be decided.
PARALLEL ISSUES
Moving parties contend that an examination of the Spokane County Complaint
shows how close it parallels the already transferred and consolidated King County
cause 00 2 02128 1: the causes of action track each other almost verbatim:
* single subject violation of Article II, section 19
*defective title, in violation of constitutional requirements
*violation of tax uniformity requirement
*unconstitutional gift of public funds to private parties
*amendment without proper reference
*ex post facto repeal to work an unconstitutional impairment of the obligation
of contract
* unlawful calculation of the levy limit
* unequal treatment in violation of Article I, section12
*improper equalization of the state levy
In the factual area, the Court has already been informed as to the integrated
character of the State Department of Revenue’s management and oversight of the
state property tax system. This will not be belabored. (Affidavit of Henry Miggins,
paragraphs 3 and 4). Movants are clearly in an identical position to parties
already enjoined. The Spokane City Council’s 2001 budgeting efforts are paralyzed
by the uncertainties surrounding implementation of this measure of such doubtful
constitutionality.
INTERVENTION
Movants note the Court has already granted one party intervention. Movants
submit particularly in a case involving such identical issues, intervention
is an appropriate measure. Intervention may be "of right" or "permissive." CR
24 provides:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application, anyone shall be
permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the applicant claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest,
unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing
parties.
(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application, anyone may be
permitted to intervene in an action:
. . .
(2) When an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a
question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the
court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Movants urge even a facial examination of the circumstances of this case support
intervention as a matter of right and permissively.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD APPLY
Although it may not be necessary to brief the issue, Movants offer the Court
the very recent case of All Star Gas v. Bechard 100 Wn App 732 (2000).
There, the Court noted the criteria for applying injunctive relief even to non
parties in a case. The test stated is whether it would be reasonable to conclude
that the non parties were so identified in legal interest with the parties named
in the decree that it would be reasonable to conclude that the nonparty’s rights
and interests were represented. Here, Movants are both a city and a county.
Both feel their interests were adequately represented and the injunction should
apply. While here, formal consolidation and intervention are requested, Movants
point out case law suggests in might not even be needed, considering the undisputed
facts presented.
In conclusion, Movants ask the Court to grant the relief requested.
DATED this ______ day of December, 2000.
JAMES C. SLOANE
City Attorney
_____________________________
By: Robert G. Beaumier
Assistant City Attorney
Wash State Bar no. 5512
_____________________________
JOHN WETLE
STEVENS COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Wash State Bar no. 7533
|
