Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,784 chars

boundaries. In the amended complaint, Filo Foods alleged that Proposition 1 is

invalid on a number of grounds, including that it (1) violates the single-subject rule,

(2) violates the Port of Seattle's jurisdiction over the Seattle-Tacoma International

1
This court stayed a petition for review in the ballot signatures case pending a final
decision in this case. Order Deferring Review, Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, No.
90113-9 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2014). The issues relating to the sufficiency of the signatures to
put Proposition 1 on the ballot are thus not before the court at this time.

Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

Airport, (3) is preempted by federal labor and aviation laws, and (4) violates the

dormant commerce clause. 2

Filo Foods moved for summary judgment on these challenges, and the trial

court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. First, the trial court determined

that Proposition 1 did not violate the single-subject rule. Second, the trial court held

that Proposition 1 violates a state law that gives the Port of Seattle jurisdiction over

the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and thus could not be enforced at the airport.

Third, the trial court held that federal labor law preempts Proposition 1's

antiretaliation provision, but that federal law did not otherwise preempt Proposition 1.

Finally, the trial court held that Proposition 1 did not violate the dormant commerce

clause. The Committee and the City sought direct discretionary review, and Filo

Foods sought cross review. We granted review and designated the Port of Seattle as a

respondent.

ANALYSIS

We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Lakey v. Puget