Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,745 chars

The federal district court granted summary judgment on the basis that the State

had not established standing to bring the federal claims. Citing article III of the

United States Constitution, the court recognized that standing is part of the case or

controversy requirement limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts; it focused on

whether the State had set forth sufficient facts to satisfy the requirements of article

III and the additional requirements for parens patriae standing. 1 CP at 301-02

(quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L.

Ed. 2d 351 (1992); Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458

U.S. 592, 607, 102 S. Ct. 3260, 73 L. Ed. 2d 995 (1982) (Snapp)). The court

concluded the State had shown isolated incidents injuring individuals rather than a

pattern of enforcement that would be harmful if it were to spread to other parts of

Washington or a special interest separate from the interests of individual residents,

as required for parens patriae standing. Accordingly, the court granted summary

judgment as to the § 1983 and FHA claims for lack of standing and declined to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Id. at 317.

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

The court later amended the judgment to remand all of the State’s claims to state

court. Id. at 115-16 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (requiring remand of a removed case

when the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction)).

2. In State Court: Defendants’ Second Summary Judgment Motion

Back in Yakima County Superior Court, the defendants moved for summary