First Amended Class Action Complaint for Civil Court Funding

1 2 3 4 5 6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

7

JENNIFER RALSTON, CALEB MCNAMARA AND THE ESTATE OF MCNAMARA; BRAEDEN SIMON, ABIE EKENEZER, JESSE HUGHEY, TIM KAUCHUK, JORDAN PICKETT, DANIEL PIERCE, SEAN SWANSON, JOEY WIESER, QUINN ZOSCHKE, JEFF CUSHMAN,

8 9 10 11 12

Plaintiffs,

13

STATE OF WASHINGTON, a governmental entity,

15

Defendants.

16 17

I.

18

1.1

19

INTRODUCTION 1

For decades, our state courts have been reduced to begging the Legislature for adequate funding to no avail. The courts perform critical, mandated, and

20

constitutionally guaranteed functions. In the most important constitutional law

21

decision rendered in the United States, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the

22

24

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL COURT FUNDING, FINDINGS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND ALTERNATIVELY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

v.

14

23

NO. 21-2-06462-7

The words of this complaint includes the words of Washington State judges written or spoken on the topic of court funding over many decades.

1

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 1

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to

2

claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first

3

duties of government is to afford that protection.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1

4

Cranch) 137, 163 (1803).

5

1.2

This lawsuit is brought as a putative class action on behalf of those who must avail

6

themselves of the courts in civil matters but are hindered in doing so because court

7

funding is lacking.

8

1.3

The Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches serve different functions but should

9

collectively strive to create, administer, and interpret the laws that help people live,

10

work, and thrive. The role of the Judicial branch was set at the birth of our state in

11

Article 4 of the Washington State Constitution. As part of the crucial checks-and-

12

balances structure of our government, the Judicial branch is charged with interpreting

13

the Constitution and laws of everyday situations faced by individuals, businesses, and

14

organizations. Every day nearly 500 judges and more than 2,000 Judicial branch staff

15

work across the state to adjudicate and administer more than 2 million court cases each

16

year. 2

17

1.4

That the legislature has unabatedly “checked” necessary judicial funding and has not

18

fulfilled its nondelegable duty to adequately fund the third branch of government has

19

led to an unconstitutional imbalance; it has badly handicapped government’s common

20

and combined duty to serve justice to the public as a whole.

21 22 23 24

2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 2

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 2

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

1.5

Demand on the courts has long exceeded the funding provided. Chief Justice Barbara

2

A. Madsen wrote in 2015: “[O]ur courts continue to struggle with high caseloads,

3

reduced staff, old information systems, growing needs for interpreters, and inadequate

4

structures. Meeting the justice needs of the people of Washington requires adequate

5

funding from the legislature.” 3 “Justice matters, but the stark reality is that adequate

6

funding is still the most severe obstacle impeding fair, accessible and timely justice for

7

the people of Washington.” 4

8

1.6

Judicial leaders recognize that courts cannot turn customers away if they become full: Providing fair and equal justice is not a goal – it is a constitutional promise. 5

9 10

1.7

Article I section 10 of our State Constitution provides: “Justice in all cases shall be

11

administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.” Article I section 29 provides:

12

“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are

13

declared to be otherwise.”

14

1.8

There is a general absence of state funding for trial courts in Washington. 6 According

15

to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington State ranked 50 out of 50 in state

16

funding for trial courts in 2012 7 and little has changed since. Courts have historically

17

comprised less than one percent of the state operating budget. This means our superior

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 4 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 15. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 5 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 16. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 6 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 8.

7 Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2012 – Preliminary (Table 3); Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 3

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 3

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

courts must continuously beseech city and county governments to provide funds for

2

critical constitutionally mandated operations. 8

3

1.9

In 2005, the State Legislature passed E2SSB5454 allegedly to relieve counties from

4

shouldering the burden of funding the courts, to improve access to justice, and to

5

provide trial court funding. 9 This bill should never have been needed; providing court

6

funding was the Legislature’s nondelegable responsibility. Even so, the bill failed to

7

result in sustained adequate funding of the Courts.

8

1.10

By 2008, the number of state funded legal aid attorneys employed by the Northwest

9

Justice Project dropped by 20 percent, resulting in a drop of nearly 5,000 civil legal aid

10

cases between 2009 and 2014. By 2015, low-income community members had less

11

access to civil aid than they did before the supposed legislative funding change in

12

2005. 10 Judge Veronica Alicea-Galvan, then president of the District and Municipal

13

Court Judge’s Association, 11 commented on this issue: “There are significant

14

challenges to providing consistent and equitable levels of justice to the communities

15

we serve. Most of those challenges are attributable to a lack of funding of the services

16

necessary to succeed at the monumental task before us.”

17

1.11

As Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens noted, “Even before the pandemic, courts strained under the weight of growing caseloads and inadequate resources.” 12 But the pandemic

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

See, Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 8.

Final Bill Report, E2SSB5454, March 1, 2005. 5454-S2.FBR.pdf (wa.gov) 10 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 14. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 11 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 12. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 12 2021 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Debra L. Stephen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 3.

January2021.pdf (wa.gov) 8 9

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 4

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

has highlighted and exacerbated the implications and inequities that arise from a

2

longstanding trend of chronically underfunding courts across the state.

3

1.12

Civil trials in Washington had come to a relative standstill following the initial

4

emergency COVID shutdowns in March 2020. While a variety of factors have been

5

involved in restarting trials, the single most significant issue involves failure to properly

6

fund the courts. Funding to arrange for additional premises on which to conduct

7

socially distanced trials. Funding to provide for additional trial judges to deal with the

8

historic number of backlogged civil cases trailing an unprecedented volume of criminal

9

settings. Funding to accommodate shifts to electronic trial management through clerks

10 11

and other court personnel – from Zoom juries and witnesses to paperless exhibits.

1.13

During 2020 in King County, about $10M in covid emergency funds were used to

12

install TVs in courtrooms, introduce new technology to conduct telephone and virtual

13

hearings, and to conduct civil trials at the Meydenbauer Convention Center. When the

14

funding ended, so did use of those facilities.

15

1.14

By contrast, in Kitsap and other small counties, due to lack of adequate resources,

16

courts required participants to attend non-socially distanced trials. This dangerous

17

situation resulted in most parties agreeing to continuances or being forced into

18

unsatisfactory settlements.

19

1.15

20 21 22

Civil trial dates are being routinely moved forward by trial courts sua sponte with warnings that trials still may not commence even then.

1.16

In March 2021, the King County Prosecutor stated that the backlog of cases waiting for court action could reach 10,000 by summer’s end.

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 5

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

1.17

In April 2021, King County Superior Court Presiding Judge Jim Rogers, wrote that

2

“our judicial system is now staggering under a backlog of cases that threatens to keep

3

people locked up for years awaiting trial and prevents victims of violent crimes from

4

justice. He then submitted a funding request to the King County Council which was in

5

the process of disbursing covid relief based emergency funding the vast majority from

6

federal and state grants. As of June 30, 2021, 5478 criminal cases were waiting for

7

trial.

8

1.18

Judge Rogers requested $34.1M for the Superior Court from these emergency funds.

9

On July 27, 2020, the council granted a fraction of that requested amount as part of a

10

larger covid budget package that included $300M for rental assistance, eviction

11

prevention, community support vaccination efforts, public health and economic

12

recovery efforts.

13

1.19

The situation in King County illustrates the funding inequities and dilemmas caused by

14

the State’s failure to properly fund the courts.

15

underfunded the county council was asked to move emergency monies from social

16

services to the courts to make up some of the shortfall.

17

1.20

Because the courts are severely

The named Plaintiffs represent hundreds and perhaps thousands of proposed class

18

Plaintiffs impacted by the trial courts’ breakdowns in functioning. The Plaintiffs do

19

not blame the courts for their inability to properly function. The Plaintiffs blame the

20

Washington State Legislature and Executive branches for pathologically failing to

21

provide the courts adequate funding.

22 23 24

1.21

Although the courts are not parties to this suit (which would be an awkward prospect, see Matter of Salary of Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d 232, 242, 552 P.2d 163 (En Banc

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 6

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

1976)), the fundamental constitutional principles mandating open courts and active

2

justice for all support the filing of litigation by those most harshly impacted: injured

3

plaintiffs suffering the consequences of not having their civil cases timely tried. Their

4

injuries range from physical to financial, many with devastating personal and family

5

consequences. The court’s inability to efficiently or predictably address their claims

6

for compensation can be as devastating as the underlying injuries that brought them to

7

court—sometimes even more so. For example, plaintiffs who await a verdict so that

8

an insurance money will be paid on their behalf may lose their homes as the result of

9

inordinate and sequential delays of their trials. Long overdue and unpaid medical bills

10

may force others into bankruptcy. The toll on plaintiffs unable to proceed with their

11

trials is a profound and disastrous occurrence in their already compromised and

12

vulnerable lives.

13

1.22

Our State Constitution recognizes that public catastrophes demand emergency action

14

by the legislature. Article II section 42 requires the legislature to enact “immediately”

15

to carry out all “measures as may be necessary and proper for insuring the continuity

16

of government operations during such emergencies.” The impact of COVID-19 on our

17

courts has both created an acute emergency, but also boldly highlighted the underlying

18

and ever-growing chronic emergency of our significantly underfunded courts.

19

“Justice delayed is justice denied.”

20

1.23

The Constitution of the State of Washington Article I provides its citizens with the right

21

to a jury trial and justice without unnecessary delay. This lawsuit is brought to address

22

the above fundamental breakdowns and constitutional violations suffered by the

23

Plaintiffs, by holding the State of Washington accountable for its failure to properly

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 7

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

fund its citizens’ courts.

2

Mandamus is sought to compel an express judicial order recognizing the ongoing

3

deficiencies that prevent our courts – and, by extension, the government as a whole –

4

from meeting their mandatory constitutional duties; to restore Plaintiffs’ reasonable

5

access to the adequate and reasonable administration of justice through the courts; and

6

to require the State to immediately and properly fund the judicial branch of

7

government.

II.

8 9 10 11

2.1

allegedly murdered and is the subject of Grant County Superior Court Case No. 15-201064-2. These plaintiffs reside in Grant County, Washington.

2.2

father’s death the person who allegedly killed him has had possession and control of

17

the family farmhouse and acreage to the exclusion of the children. Due to potential

18

application of the slayer statute, the life insurance company placed proceeds into the

19

21 22 23 24

Plaintiffs Ralston, McNamara, and Estate of Timothy McNamara filed their original complaint for wrongful death action on August 31, 2015. Since the time of their

16

20

Plaintiffs Jennifer Ralston and Caleb McNamara, brother and sister, bring this action on behalf of themselves and the Estate of Timothy McNamara, their father who was

13

15

PARTIES

All named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class as follows:

12

14

Declaratory Judgment Relief or alternatively Writ of

court registry without interest accruing so long as the case remains pending.

2.3

Today, nearly six years after the case was filed, it remains awaiting trial with no action taken by the trial court since October 30, 2020 when it issued an amended scheduling order and heard a motion to compel.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 8

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

2.4

Due to the backlog of priority settings for the backlog of criminal cases that exists in

2

Grant County, coupled with repercussions of the Supreme Court’s striking down of the

3

State’s Felony Drug Possession Law, there is no assurance that the McNamara trial

4

date will go forward as scheduled.

5

2.5

Plaintiff Braeden Simon brings this action individually. He was the victim in a

6

motorcycle versus car crash that is the subject of Pierce County Superior Court Case

7

No. 20.2.07549.9 He resides in Pierce County, Washington.

8

2.6

Simon was a 26-year-old EMT, ER Tech and volunteer firefighter when the incident

9

occurred. He suffered hemorrhagic shock, bilateral carotid artery dissection, major

10

nerve injury affecting right lower extremity, and numerous fractures (pelvis, right

11

ankle, right knee, left knee, right upper arm, left elbow, left forearm, and both hands).

12

He required multiple surgeries during his initial 7-week hospitalization, followed by

13

extensive rehabilitation - inpatient and subsequent outpatient.

14

2.7

Simon’s own motorcycle insurance did not cover the incident.

The tortfeasor’s

15

insurance company initially declined to pay the modest and inadequate policy limits,

16

prompting the filing of a lawsuit.

17

2.8

Simon brought this action promptly on September 8, 2020, and it was set for trial to

18

occur one year later. Without notice the court unilaterally rescheduled the trial date to

19

February 2022.

20

2.9

Due to the backlog of priority settings for the backlog of criminal cases that exists in

21

Pierce County, coupled with repercussions of the Supreme Court’s striking down of

22

the State’s Felony Drug Possession Law, there is no assurance that the Simon trial date

23

will go forward as scheduled.

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 9

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

2.10

Abie Ekenezer is a Black U.S. Army veteran who completed tours of duty in

2

Afghanistan and Somalia. She suffers from physical disability stemming from her

3

military service and participated at the BLM protests in a scooter. During the protests,

4

Ekenezer, a peaceful protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and harmed by

5

the actions of the City and its improper use of weaponry. Ekenezer is a resident of

6

Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington.

7

2.11

Jessey Hughey is a musician who attended the BLM protests with his brother. During

8

the protests, Hughey, a peaceful protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and

9

harmed by the actions of the City and its improper use of weaponry. Hughey is a

10 11

resident of Seattle, King County, Washington.

2.12

Tim Kauchak is a former police officer who attended the BLM protests. He was

12

engaged in video documenting of the scene. During the protests, Kauchak, a peaceful

13

protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and harmed by the actions of the City

14

and its improper use of weaponry. Kauchak is a resident of Seattle, King County,

15

Washington.

16

2.13

Jordan Pickett is a multimedia journalist for The Daily – University of Washington’s

17

student newspaper, who attended the BLM protests.

18

photograph the protests and wearing press credentials. During the protests, Pickett, a

19

peaceful protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and harmed by the actions of

20

the City and its improper use of weaponry. Pickett is a resident of Seattle, King County,

21

Washington.

22 23 24

2.14

He was on assignment to

Daniel Pierce is a hair stylist, who attended the BLM protests. During the protests, Pierce, a peaceful protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and harmed by the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 10

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

actions of the City and its improper use of weaponry. Pierce is a resident of Seattle,

2

King County, Washington.

3

2.15

Sean Swanson is a service industry worker, who attended the BLM protests. During

4

the protests, Swanson, a peaceful protester, was physically and mentally assaulted and

5

harmed by the actions of the City and its improper use of weaponry. Swanson is a

6

resident of Seattle, King County, Washington.

7

2.16

Joey Wieser was a YouTube channel manager for a local company, who attended the

8

BLM protests. During the protests, Wieser, a peaceful protester, was physically and

9

mentally assaulted and harmed by the actions of the City and its improper use of

10 11

weaponry. Wieser is a resident of Seattle, King County, Washington.

2.17

Quinn Zoschke is a bartender at Streamline Tavern, who attended the BLM protests.

12

During the protests, Zoschke, a peaceful protester, was physically and mentally

13

assaulted and harmed by the actions of the City and its improper use of weaponry.

14

Zoschke is a resident of Seattle, King County, Washington.

15

2.18

Ekenezer, Hughey, Kauchak, Pickett, Pierce, Swanson, Wieser, and Zoschke, are

16

plaintiff members of a multi-party action involving approximately 55 peaceful

17

protesters who filed a lawsuit which is currently filed in King County Superior Court

18

Case No. 20-2-14351-1 SEA. Some of these plaintiffs also have claims against King

19

County. In addition to resolution of their personal injury claims, these plaintiffs are

20

waiting to learn whether the justice system will uphold their right to peaceably

21

assemble and protest free from physical assault by the police. Many have been

22

intimidated from protesting again, due to fear of further reprisals by the City and

23

County during peaceful protests.

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 11

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

2.19

The original BLM protester lawsuit was filed September 25, 2020. There have been

2

several motions and iterations of the complaint, the last being the Third Amended

3

Complaint filed April 2, 2021. The trial date has been moved from September 27,

4

2021, to February 21, 2023. The defendants had asked for a three-year continuance.

5

The Court has indicated that it may revisit whether to move the trial again in the future.

6

The Court initially denied the defendant’s motion for a Special Master to assist on the

7

case, but has indicated that due to the workload involved, the issue will be revisited.

8

Superior Court judges often struggle to adequately handle complex multi-party

9

litigation due to limited time (due to extraordinarily heavy caseloads) and inadequate

10 11

resources – such as law clerks and other staff.

2.20

Jeff Cushman was one of four members of an aviation ground transportation company

12

who had come to Seattle to work on a Boeing related project. On July 25, 2019, the

13

men were passengers in an airport transport van that was struck as the result of a Lyft

14

driver cutting into the lane of another driver, who drove across the center lane and into

15

the van which then tipped over. One member of the group died and the rest including

16

Mr. Cushman were injured. A lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2020, with a trial date

17

of October 11, 2021. Their claims have been consolidated with other passenger claims

18

in King County Superior Court Cause No. 20-2-15091-6 KNT. The court moved the

19

trial date to March 28, 2022. Mr. Cushman resides in Marina Del Rey, California.

20

2.21

Cushman sustained multiple injuries including PTSD. PTSD by its very nature is

21

triggered when reminders occur of a traumatic incident. One such trigger is ongoing

22

litigation and all of the steps, statements, and details that are involved. The longer a

23

case is pending post incident the longer these additional triggers continue to impact the

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 12

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

client. It is important for cases to be resolved expeditiously to minimize further damage

2

to an injured plaintiff.

3

continuances and are harmed by them.

4

2.22

This is one reason plaintiffs in these cases oppose trial

Significant discovery in the Cushman case had been ongoing before the consolidation

5

with a motion to compel granted against Lyft and a motion for sanctions under

6

consideration. Due to case load and other issues related in part to underfunding, and

7

against the objection of Plaintiffs, the Court ordered that a Special Master be appointed

8

at the expense of the parties.

9

2.23

Defendant State of Washington is a governmental entity.

10

2.24

Pursuant to its Constitution, the State of Washington exists “to protect and maintain

11 12

individual rights.” Wash. Const. art. I, sec. 1.

2.25

Pursuant to its Constitution, the State of Washington discharges part of its obligation

13

to protect and maintain individual rights by establishing and maintaining a judicial

14

branch within which all judicial power is vested. Wash. Const. art. IV, sec. 1.

15

2.26

Further, in furtherance of the discharge of that obligation, the State of Washington, as

16

an individual right, is obligated to administer justice “openly, and without unnecessary

17

delay.” Wash. Const. art. I, sec. 10.

18

2.27

Pursuant to the Constitution, the State of Washington is further obligated to assure the

19

“prompt and orderly administration of justice,” a value the Constitution specifies as

20

guidance for emergency operations, when necessary. Wash. Const. art. IV, sec. 2a).

21

2.28

Further, in furtherance of the discharge of these obligations, the State of Washington

22

cannot divest itself of or otherwise impair its obligation to provide a fully functioning

23

judicial branch, which is a paramount duty of the State assigned to it by the Constitution

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 13

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

and creates a corelative obligation to serve litigants, like plaintiffs, who seek judicial

2

resolution of their disputes.

3

2.29

Pursuant to the Constitution no moneys shall ever be paid out of the treasury of this

4

state, or any of its funds, or any of the funds under its management, except in pursuance

5

of an appropriation by law…,” Wash. Const. art. VIII, sec 4, however, it is the “the

6

duty of the Legislature to enact legislation compatible” with a judicial determination

7

that the funding of the judicial branch is constitutionally inadequate. Cf. Seattle School

8

Dist. No. 1 of King County v. State, 90 Wash.2d 476, 538, 585 P.2d 71 (1978).

9

2.30

The Constitution of the State of Washington imposes a nondelegable duty upon the

10

State to provide and assure constitutionally adequate funding for the courts, regardless

11

of how it delegates part of that responsibility to political subdivisions upon which it has

12

relied for the majority of court funding. When that funding falls short of assuring that

13

a fully functioning judiciary as contemplated by the Constitution continues to operate,

14

the State, rather than its delegates, remains the party responsible for correcting the

15

shortfall. That ultimate responsibility for assuring adequate funding is a nondelegable

16

duty.

17

2.31

The State consists of not just the three branches of government but also all of its

18

political subdivisions, including counties. Davison v. State, 196 Wash. 2d 285, 294,

19

466 P.3d 231 (2020). Political subdivisions of the state are created for the exercise of

20

such governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them. City of Mountlake

21

Terrace v. Wilson, 15 Wash. App. 392, 394, 549 P.2d 497 (1976). Thus, the State of

22

Washington through its political subdivisions, officers, officials, employees and agents,

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 14

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

acted at all relevant times on behalf of the Defendant and within the scope of their

2

responsibility whether actual or ostensible.

3 4 5

III. 3.1

8

6; RCW 2.08.010; and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, RCW Chapter 7.24.

3.2

Counties around the state. King County Superior Court has the largest case volume

10

impacted by the Defendant’s actions and venue is appropriate in Seattle, King County,

11

Washington.

12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Jurisdiction and venue are proper in and for the Superior Court of Washington for King County, because the Defendant’s actions have occurred in King County and all other

9

13

The Superior Court of King County, State of Washington, has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Washington State Constitution Art. IV. Sec.

6 7

JURISDICTION

IV. 4.1

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Class Definition: The Plaintiffs bring this Class action pursuant to Washington CR 23(b)(3) on behalf of a Class defined as: a. All present and future plaintiffs and other parties to civil matters in State Superior Courts whose constitutional access to justice has been infringed upon due to the legislative underfunding of the state courts. b. All present and future plaintiffs and other parties to civil matters in Washington State superior courts whose constitutional right to jury trial inviolate and without unnecessary delay has been infringed upon due to the legislative underfunding of the state courts.

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 15

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

4.2

Numerosity: Upon information the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members

2

is impracticable. The disposition of the claims of the Class in a single action will

3

provide substantial benefits to all parties and the Court.

4

4.3

Commonality: There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class

5

including but not limited to:

6

a. Whether the Defendant breached its constitutional duties owed to the public and

7

the Plaintiffs to properly fund and maintain the Courts to allow for access to justice

8

and jury trials inviolate and all without undue delay.

9

b. Whether the Plaintiffs have been harmed by the Defendant’s breach of

10

nondelegable duty to properly fund the courts depriving them of access to justice

11

and jury trials inviolate without undue delay.

12

c. Whether the Defendant violated the Washington State Constitution Article 1

13

Section 10.

14

d.

15

Whether the Defendant violated the Washington State Constitution Article 1 Section 21.

16

e. The nature and extent of Class-wide injury should injunctive relief not be had in

17

directing the State to properly fund the courts to restore access to justice and jury

18

trials inviolate without undue delay.

19

4.4

Typicality: The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other members of the

20

class and the Plaintiffs are not subject to any atypical claims or defenses. The Plaintiffs

21

are being deprived of access to justice, jury trials inviolate and all without undue delay,

22

as guaranteed by the State Constitution. The Plaintiffs’ claims like those of the Class,

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 16

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

arise out of the same common course of conduct by the Defendant and are based on the

2

same legal and remedial theories.

3

4.5

Adequacy: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the Class, as they are

4

committed to prosecuting this action, have no conflicts of interest, and have retained

5

competent counsel who are experienced civil trial lawyers with recent significant

6

experience in complex and Class Action litigation and trial, including cases against the

7

government. The Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to prosecuting this action

8

vigorously on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither the

9

Plaintiffs nor their counsel have interests that are contrary to or that conflict with those

10 11

of the proposed Class.

4.6

Predominance: The common issues arising from the Defendant’s conduct affect the

12

Plaintiffs and members of the Class and predominate over any individualized issues.

13

Adjudication of these common issues in a single action has important and desirable

14

advantages of judicial economy.

15

4.7

Superiority: The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and will continue to

16

suffer harm and damages as a result of the Defendant’s conduct. Absent a class action,

17

most Class members likely would find the cost of litigating their claims prohibitive.

18

Class treatment is superior to multiple individual suits or piecemeal litigation because

19

it conserves judicial resources, promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication,

20

and provides a forum for all claims. There will be no significant difficulty in the

21

management of this case as a Class action. The identity of each Class member is readily

22

identifiable from the Courts’ public records.

V.

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 17

FACTUAL BACKGROUND STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

A. FAILURE OF LEGISLATIVE FUNDING OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS

1 2 3

5.1

of government as provided for in the Washington State Constitution by establishing

4 5 6

distinct branches of government and a system of checks and balances.

5.2

9

discharging its constitutionally assigned authority.

5.3

12 13 14

with Judicial Branch funding by providing inadequate appropriations.

5.4

5.5

executive body has. The only means of direct participation in the budgeting process is by intervention, in the form of litigation, to compel the payment of constitutionally

17

adequate funds for the court system, which can be declared by a court as a matter of

18

inherent judicial authority. See Matter of Salary of Juvenile Director, 87 Wn.2d 232,

19

22 23 24

No authority rests in the judiciary to appropriate funds, as a legislative body has, nor does the authority rest to exercise the power of the veto as a bargaining device, as an

16

21

The Legislative Branch cannot delegate to the counties - its constitutional duty to reasonably and adequately fund the Judicial Branch.

15

20

The Judicial Branch cannot effectively exercise the authority delegated to it by the Constitution, because the Legislative and Executive Branches have unduly interfered

10 11

Separation of powers is violated not only when one branch exercises powers assigned to another branch, but also when one branch prevents another branch from fully

7 8

Inadequate funding of the Judicial Branch violates separation of powers of the branches

552 P.2d 163 (En Banc (1976).

5.6

The Judicial Branch’s authority is not limited to adjudication but includes certain ancillary functions, such as rule-making and judicial administration, which are essential if the courts are to carry out their constitutional mandate. Id. at 242.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 18

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.7

If checks by one branch of government (Legislative) undermine the operation of

2

another branch (Courts) or undermine the rule of law which all branches are committed

3

to maintain, those checks are improper and destructive exercises of authority. Id. at

4

243.

5

5.8

If, for example, the legislature were to zero out the budget for the judiciary, the

6

constitutional violation would be patent. A constitutionally inadequate judicial budget

7

implicates the same constitutional principles and mandates.

8

5.9

9

adoption of the government budget. Such exclusion makes the courts vulnerable to

10 11

The judiciary is the only branch excluded from participation in the formulation and

improper checks in the form of reward or retaliation. Id. at 244.

5.10

Separation of powers dictates that the judiciary be able to ensure its own survival when

12

insufficient funds are provided to other branches. Courts possess inherent power which

13

may be exercised by the branch to protect itself in the performance of its constitutional

14

duties. Id. at 245.

15

5.11

It is axiomatic that, as an independent and co-equal branch of government, the judiciary

16

must have adequate and sufficient resources to ensure the proper operation of the

17

courts.

18

department with awesome powers over the life, liberty, and property of every citizen,

19

while, at the same time, denying the judges authority to determine the basic needs of

20

their courts as to equipment, facilities, and supporting personnel. Id. at 245.

21 22

It would be illogical to interpret the Constitution as creating a judicial

B. A LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE TO FUND THE TRIAL COURTS

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 19

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.12

According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington State ranked 50 out of 50 in state funding for trial courts in 2012 13 and little has changed since.

2 3

5.13

There is a general absence of state funding for trial courts. 14

4

5.14

This means that our superior courts must beg city and county governments to almost exclusively provide funds for critical court operations. 15

5 6

5.15

The legislature has declared that trial courts are critical to maintaining the rule of law and protecting rights and enforcing obligations. 16

7 8

5.16

In 2005, the State Legislature passed E2SSB5454 allegedly to relieve counties from shouldering the burden of funding trial courts and services. 17

9 10

5.17

Just three years later by 2008, the number of state-funded legal aid attorneys employed

11

by the Northwest Justice Project dropped by 20 percent – resulting in a drop of nearly

12

5,000 civil legal aid cases between 2009 – 2014. By 2015, low-income residents had

13

less access to civil aid than they did before the supposed legislative funding change in

14

2005. 18

15

5.18

Cumulative losses in funding for civil legal aid have exceeded $2.5 million since 2008,

16

resulting in steep capacity declines at a time when Washington’s low-income

17

population and their civil legal needs were increasing. The difference between the need

18

for civil legal help and the amount of help available is called “the justice gap.” 19

19 20 21 22 23 24

Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts, 2012 – Preliminary (Table 3); Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 14 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 8.

15 See, Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 8.

16 Final Bill Report, E2SSB5454, March 1, 2005. 5454-S2.FBR.pdf (wa.gov).

17 Final Bill Report, E2SSB5454, March 1, 2005. 5454-S2.FBR.pdf (wa.gov).

18 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 14. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 19 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. Page 15. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 13

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 20

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.19

The 2005 Legislature increased court and user fees supposedly to pay for trial court

2

improvement under E2SSB5454. However, the Courts could only keep 53 percent of

3

those fees. The rest (46 percent) were sent back to the State Treasurer and used to pay

4

for non-court programs.

5

5.20

The 2005 Legislature created trial court improvement accounts but did not directly fund

6

them. Instead, it foisted its nondelegable duty to fund onto cities, towns, and counties. 20

7

Ten years later in 2015, local cities and counties still funded 80 percent of trial court

8

costs and services, not the legislature. 21

9

5.21

This same “patchwork” quilt of funding sources for the courts exists today – resulting

10

in large disparities between the superior courts, none of which are adequately funded

11

and all of which are unable to provide the full panoply of constitutional functions

12

required.

C. THE LONG HISTORY OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT’S UNHEEDED REQUESTS THAT THE LEGISLATURE REASONABLY AND ADEQUATELY FUND THE COURTS.

13 14 15

5.22

2000. Chief Justice Richard P. Guy inaugurated the Court’s tradition of a written State

16

of the Judiciary report during the second year of a legislative term. He began by noting

17

that the Legislature’s increased activity in enacting more criminal laws meant a

18

corresponding decline in judicial resources available for civil cases. Civil litigants wait

19

too long to have their day in court. Since justice delayed is justice denied both the

20

legislature and judiciary need to work together to address the problem. He implored

21 22 23 24

Final Bill Report, E2SSB5454, March 1, 2005. 5454-S2.FBR.pdf (wa.gov) 2015 State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington, p.11. january2015.pdf (wa.gov)

20 21

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 21

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

the legislature for help: a) in providing more resources; and b) changing the way the

2

courts are funded:

3

Without stable, uniform funding, I believe it is impossible to achieve equal justice. Cities and counties with strong economies and large tax bases are able to provide more in-court services than those without a strong revenue base. A court that can guarantee a civil trial date within a few months provides better justice than a court that makes litigants wait for years to settle their disputes…I am concerned that, in some circumstances, justice may be decided based more upon economics than upon evidence. 22

4 5 6 7

5.23

2001. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander requested a fee increase for jurors. The statutory

8

minimum was set in 1959 at $10 a day and is woefully inadequate now. It will not

9

cover parking in Seattle. He also requested an appropriation of funds in order to

10

modernize the courts. Hardware and software were old, and he wondered if they could

11

get a CD player. 23

12

5.24

2003. In describing the judicial system as “managing to hold its head above water,”

13

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander addressed the very great problem that the poor and

14

vulnerable people of this state face. The increasing inability to obtain legal assistance

15

in civil matters. Only a small percentage of indigent citizens were provided counsel.

16

It was hoped that long term, sustained and permanent state funding would be provided

17

so that the poor could obtain essential legal services. Justice Alexander also noted that

18

the Administrative Office of the Courts had reduced its staff by over 6 percent to absorb

19

the cost of upgrading the state’s judicial information system, described as “an aging

20

relic that costs too much to maintain.” He requested the Legislature pitch in to assist

21

with the necessary upgrades. In closing, he reminded the legislature that “the state

22 23 24

22 23

2000 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Richard P. Guy. January 2000 (courts.wa.gov) 2001 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. January 2001 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 22

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

government of Washington pays the lowest percentage of the cost of its trial courts of

2

any state government.” 24

3

5.25

2005. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander followed up on the issue of how and to what

4

extent the trial courts are funded. While closer in time to statehood (over a century

5

ago), the courts could get by with being funded by cities and counties, the work of the

6

courts (which is, in part, set by legislation passed by the state) has grown dramatically.

7

While time does not permit me to recite at length all of the ill effects of this inadequate funding, I can tell you that some of our trial courts are no longer able to provide probation services, and many, if not most, are unable to offer programs that have proven effective elsewhere like adult and juvenile drug courts, mental health courts, and unified family courts. Furthermore, too many of our trial court jurisdictions are experiencing crowded court dockets which frequently results in the postponement of trials, particularly civil trials. In three of our four largest counties, the time to trial in civil cases is over twelve months. That, ladies and gentlemen, is too long for people to wait to have their disputes resolved. This may seem trivial, but I have to tell you that the funding situation has become so bad in many counties, including our largest and wealthiest county, King, that our trial courts do not have sufficient funds to even provide box lunches for jurors when the jury is deliberating on its verdict. This means that trial judges have to permit sequestered jurors to separate at mealtimes and then return to the jury room after they have obtained a meal at their own expense. 25

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

5.26

16

fees from $10, as he initially requested in 2001. Justice Alexander requested funds to

17

pay for legal services for the poor, in particular domestic violence victims. And he

18

asked for funds to update the court’s antiquate technology systems, as he did in 2003.

19

Circling back to comments he made to the Legislature about inadequate state funding

20

in 2003 and 2005, Justice Alexander yet again reminded the Legislature that

21

Washington ranked dead last in the nation in terms of funding trial courts.

22 23 24

2006. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander discussed the need to increase inadequate jury

24 25

2003 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. January 2003 (courts.wa.gov) 2005 State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, January 2005 (courts.wa.gov).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 23

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

As you may recall, during my last address I highlighted findings of a Trial Court Funding Task Force and our "Justice in Jeopardy" legislative proposal aimed at improving the operations of our trial courts in Washington. A core finding of this task force was that there must be a rebalancing of responsibility for the funding of trial courts so that the state government contributes in a more equitable way, along with local government, to the operations of the superior, district, and municipal courts. As an example of the current funding imbalance, in 2003 Washington State ranked 50th of the 50 states in terms of funding for its trial courts, prosecution and indigent defense, with less than three-tenths of one percent of the state's budget dedicated to the funding of the judicial branch of government. 26

2 3 4 5 6 7

5.27

2007. For the fourth time since his first State of the Judiciary in 2001, Chief Justice

8

Gerry Alexander reminded the Legislature that the imbalance between state and local

9

funding of the courts was causing serious problems in the judiciary. Despite increased

10

judicial advocacy around this issue, local jurisdictions were still burdened with

11

covering more than 80 percent of the costs of maintaining trial courts.

12

As a consequence of all of this, our trial courts have been severely challenged as they have endeavored to keep up with increasing caseloads.

In some jurisdictions, particularly in our metropolitan areas, we have seen delays in getting cases to trial due to crowded court calendars, difficulties in obtaining qualified interpreters for non-English speakers, criminal defense attorneys with caseloads that are too large, and large numbers of persons going without representation in civil cases, particularly in family court matters.

13 14 15 16

As a solution, Justice Alexander recommended, based on the Court Funding Task Force

17

and other studies: “the State should pay 50 percent of the cost of trial court operations

18

and indigent criminal defense, and assume a substantially greater role in funding civil

19

legal aid services for Washington’s low-income residents.” He requested an increase

20

in Civil Legal Aid, which was $33 million short. He requested state funding to help

21

with a growing need for court interpreters:

22 23 24

26

2006 State of the Judiciary, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, January 2006 (wa.courts.gov).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 24

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

Unfortunately, although we have probably the best system in the nation for certifying court interpreters, many jurisdictions are not able to follow the letter or the spirit of the law because of a lack of funds. The result is that far too often uncertified court interpreters are being utilized because of low pay and/or an inability to obtain a certified interpreter. This, of course, can result in testimony and evidence not being accurately presented to the trier of fact, thereby increasing the possibility that a wrong decision may result.

2 3 4 5

Finally, Justice Alexander said that additional state funding was necessary for the state

6

defender systems to become compliant with WSBA standards.

7

While state law dictates that counties adopt standards for administering public defense systems, using Washington State Bar Association standards as guidelines, I am told by our state’s director of the Office of Public Defense, Joanne Moore, that presently no county public defense system is compliant… We need to make a substantial leap forward in 2007-2009 toward closing what the Spokesman Review called an “embarrassing funding gap” so that our systems of public defense can deliver on our constitutional duty to provide adequate representation to all indigent criminal defendants. 27

8 9 10 11 12

5.28

2008. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander reminded the Legislature, for the fifth time since

13

2003, of the increasing need for civil legal aid for the poor and vulnerable people in

14

Washington: The Supreme Court’s Task Force determined that an additional $18.3 million per year was needed to close the “Justice Gap” documented in the Civil Legal Needs Study in areas of representation currently authorized under RCW 2.53.030. Since 2005, the Legislature has increased annualized funding by about $4.3 million per year, still leaving a Justice Gap of about $12 million per year. 28

15 16 17 18

5.29

19

seen in the courts between 2007 and 2009, when describing the consequences of

20

inadequate state funding, Chief Justice Alexander simply copied and pasted his

21

comments from 2007:

22 23 24

2009. In his final State of the Judiciary in 2009, because so few improvements were

27 28

2007 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. January 2007 (wa.courts.gov) 2008 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. January 2008 (wa.courts.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 25

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

As a consequence, our trial courts have been severely challenged as they have endeavored to keep up with their increasing and more complex caseloads. In some jurisdictions, particularly in our metropolitan areas, we have seen delays in getting cases to trial due to crowded court calendars, difficulties in obtaining qualified interpreters for non-English speakers, criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors with caseloads that are too large, and large numbers of persons going without representation in civil cases, particularly in family court matters.

For the fifth time since 2003, Justice Alexander commented that, despite much judicial advocacy and some legislative action, Washington still remained last place in the nation for state funding. During an economic crisis in 2009, when the most vulnerable in the state faced an increased need for legal services, local governments were still bearing over 80 percent of the costs of maintaining courts. He again asked the state to pay 50 percent of the costs and re-emphasized the dire need to increase jury pay.

It is an issue that I have highlighted in each of the previous State of the Judiciary addresses I have presented to you… That fee was established in 1958, a time when $10 was roughly equivalent to the minimum wage for a day’s work. It is clear that today the fee is woefully inadequate and its meagerness is evidenced by the fact that for a five-day trial, Washington ranks 45th out of 50 states in terms of jury compensation.

15

For the sixth time since 2003, Justice Alexander reminded the state it should assume a

16

“substantially greater role” in funding civil legal aid for low-income Washingtonians.

17

This time, he pleaded with the Legislature to “resist the temptation” to reduce funding

18

for civil legal services and public defense.

19 20 21 22 23 24

I make this plea because it is our view that the demand for the services that our legal aid attorneys and public defenders provide is almost certainly going to increase in the hard economic times we are likely to experience in the coming biennium. The persons who benefit from these services, including the increasing numbers of our citizens who face foreclosure, eviction, or debt collection, are among the most vulnerable in our population and they are often without a voice in the halls of government—so we wish to speak for them.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 26

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

In a last-ditch effort to help the Legislature do its job to fund the courts during an

2

economic recession, Chief Justice Alexander suggested the Legislature consider

3

revising Washington’s sentencing regime, which has led to massive incarceration

4

expenses. He noted the increase in Washington’s prison population was exceeding the

5

state’s population growth at a time when Washington’s overall crime rate and violent

6

crime rates were substantially declining. Chief Justice Alexander reasoned that many

7

incarcerated people could be treated outside prisons at a lower cost to the state and at

8

no risk to public safety. 29

9

5.30

2010. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen highlighted the impact of over $17 million in

10

budget cuts over the past two years. The impacts were catastrophic: elimination of drug

11

courts and juvenile services, delays of civil trials, court closures, and elimination of

12

telephone assistance to the public. Justice Madsen also returned to a fact that the

13

Legislature had been aware of for at least a decade: “there must be a rebalancing of

14

funding of trial courts so that the state government contributes in a more equitable

15

way.” Justice Madsen reminded the Legislature that, despite some changes made in

16

2006 to establish a state public defense improvement program,

17

“…troubling deficiencies remain in the constitutional and statutory guaranties of counsel. In particular, excessively high caseloads, low compensation for contract attorneys, and inadequate oversight in the administration and delivery of trial level criminal public defense services require ongoing and focused attention.”

18 19 20

As Chief Justice Guy and Chief Justice Alexander mentioned for many consecutive

21

years before, Justice Madsen warned the Legislature that the state’s civil legal aid

22 23 24

29

2009 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. January 2009 (wa.courts.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 27

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

system was struggling to meet the urgent needs of poor and vulnerable people in

2

Washington.

3

In King County, requests for legal assistance over the past year have risen as follows: unemployment benefits (498 percent), mortgage foreclosures (291 percent), medical assistance (290 percent), public assistance (148 percent), bankruptcy (145 percent), and domestic violence (97 percent). The OCLA reports similar increases in demand across the state… Our laws guarantee basic rights and protections to all of us, not just those who can afford a lawyer. But there is a dramatic civil justice gap between the legal needs of the economically disadvantaged and the legal help they receive. At this critical time, we must work together to maintain the current level of civil legal aid funding. 30

4 5 6 7 8

5.31

9

2011. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen described the judiciary as “stretched thin.” For the 10th consecutive year, she raised the issue of disproportionate funding of the courts.

10

Washington still ranked last in the nation for its percentage of state funding of the courts

11

—a fact first shared with the Legislature by Justice Alexander in 2003. Chief Justice

12

Madsen describes the grim impact of local budget cuts on the judiciary:

13

•

14

•

15 16

•

17

•

18

• •

19

•

20 21

Courts are losing line staff, cutting hours of operations and eliminating all “real person” phone services; Entire probation departments are being eliminated meaning there is no follow-up, of any kind, to ensure defendants meet their court-ordered obligations for treatment; Courthouse facilitator hours are being reduced—meaning more unrepresented litigants are unprepared for court; Couples are living with temporary orders in dissolution cases because they can’t get trial dates; and they can’t move forward; Serious juvenile offenders are being released from detention early; Court clerks struggle to update court records in a timely and accurate manner; and Some superior courts are experiencing significant and increasing delays in civil trials; in a stunning example of this, 23 attorneys in Yakima formed a panel last year to donate their time as pro se judges to help the superior court reduce an increasing backlog of cases.

22 23 24

30

2010 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen. January 2010 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 28

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

Chief Justice Madsen reported that the state’s civil legal aid system was “struggling to

2

meet the urgent civil needs of the newly poor and vulnerable.” As a result,

3

Washingtonians in need have been routinely evicted, denied domestic violence orders,

4

foreclosed out of their homes, unable to recover money owed to them, and unable to

5

win custody of their children. Justice Madsen repeated verbatim what she told the

6

legislature in 2010:

7

Our laws guarantee basic rights and protections to all of us, not just those who can afford a lawyer. But there is an overwhelming civil justice gap between the legal needs of the economically disadvantaged and the legal help they receive. 31

8 9

5.32

10

2012. Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen warned the Legislature that the courts were struggling to provide necessary services. She echoed a sentiment the Legislature was

11

familiar with: The state needed to ease the financial burden on local jurisdictions and

12

assume a greater responsibility for its share of trial court operations. Justice Madsen

13

explained that “despite our best efforts… courts are being forced to significantly reduce

14

all types of assistance to Washington residents.” Some of the impacts from ongoing

15

budget cuts included:

16

Growing delays, sometimes beyond legal limits; Loss of public access to the courts, including closed court locations, fewer open hours during weekdays, higher filing fees, and far fewer staff to answer phones or help with questions, records, and forms; Lack of accountability for offenders who are not being monitored due to probation staff cuts; Loss of family and juvenile court programs that identify problem youth earlier and reduce the severity of juvenile crime and recidivism; and Strains on judicial decisionmaking due to loss of judicial officers, staff, and CASA supervisors.

17 18 19 20 21

In Limited Jurisdiction Courts, Justice Madsen described scenarios where judges were

22

spending a substantial amount of time on secretarial tasks instead of judicial services.

23 24

31

2011 State of the Judiciary, Chief Barbara A. Madsen, January 2011 (courts.wa.gov).

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 29

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

As mentioned in 2007 and 2009, Justice Madsen emphasized the need for funding for

2

interpreters: In 2012, there were 39 languages registered with the state, but only 15

3

languages certified by the courts. And Justice Madsen sounded the alarm on a recent

4

budget reduction document that suggested cutting the Parents Representation Program,

5

a program that reduced the amount of time Washington children spent in foster care.

6

Finally, turning to the chronic issue of civil legal aid funding, Justice Madsen observed

7

that the Office of Civil Legal Aid (OCLA) experienced nearly $1.4 million reductions

8

in legislative appropriations in the last two years, on top of federal cuts—at a time when

9

“civil legal needs of poor and vulnerable people have hit unprecedented levels.” The

10

consequences were bleak.

11

As a result, the civil legal aid system stands threadbare, struggles to maintain skeletal presence in rural communities across the state, and struggles to perform its role in supporting the ability of our courts to administer justice effectively in cases involving those unable to pay for legal representation. 32

12 13 14

5.33

2014. Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote, “We are aware that budget and resource

15

problems have confronted state and local jurisdictions since the deep recession hit our

16

nation, but I would be remiss if I failed to report this as an ongoing and serious

17

challenge for the courts, which perform a core function of government and which

18

cannot close or turn away any criminal, civil and appellate cases for lack of funding.”

19

Justice Madsen noted some of the challenges facing the court included modernizing

20

and developing technology solutions and security, and monitoring and meeting public

21

defense standards. The inadequate funding of therapeutic courts was brought to light

22

by Spokane County Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke, president of the Washington

23 24

32

2012 State of the Judiciary. Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen. January 2012 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 30

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

State Association of Drug Court Professionals. Clarke commented that funding was a

2

challenge for many therapeutic courts in the state.

3

These are all local courts. The counties set these up,” [Clarke] said. “It’s an incredible challenge. Local jurisdictions just don’t have the dollars. Some of the courts have teetered on the edge and then get saved at the last minute.

4 5

In an article about status of civil legal aid in Washington state, Jim Bamberger, Director

6

of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, stated:

7

…it is important to observe that the state-funded civil legal aid system has experienced dramatic cuts in the post-2009 period – ironically during a time when more and more people needed legal help with ever more complex problems. The capacity of the state-funded legal aid system to meet the dayto-day problems of the low-income population is now veneer thin. Singleattorney legal aid offices serve low income communities on the Olympic Peninsula, on the coast and in Eastern Washington. Imagine – one lawyer for the entire low-income population of Jefferson and Clallam Counties!

Client service has fallen as a consequence, down from more than 14,700 cases in 2009 to little more than 9,200 in 2013. Critical telecommunications infrastructure that holds the system together is failing and must be replaced before it fails altogether. 33

8 9 10 11 12 13

5.34

14

continue to “struggle with high caseloads, reduced staff, old information systems,

15

growing needs for interpreters, and inadequate structures. Meeting the justice needs of

16

the people of Washington requires adequate funding from the legislature.” 34

17

5.35

18

Not all challenges to a healthy justice system are blatant - most are more subtle, involving budget neglect, overloading of public defense attorneys and assistant attorneys general, adopting laws requiring court action without additional funding, and a crumbling court infrastructure causing delays in resolving cases

20 21 22

24

2016. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen notified the Legislature that while some progress was made, courts were still struggling.

19

23

2015. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen told the Legislature that Washington courts

2014 State of the Judiciary Report. January 2014 (courts.wa.gov) 2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. january2015.pdf (courts.wa.gov) 33 34

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 31

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

The chronic issue of legal aid resurfaced in the 2016 State of the Judiciary. The

2

Legislature was informed that Washington had just one state-funded legal aid attorney

3

for every 11,628 eligible residents; the nationally recognized minimum is one legal aid

4

attorney for every 5,000 eligible low-income residents. Supreme Court Justice Charles

5

K. Wiggins, chair of the Civil Legal Needs Study Update Committee commented, “We

6

must recognize the consequences of a system of justice in our state that denies a

7

significant portion of our population the ability to assert and defend their core legal

8

rights. We can and must do better.” To address the crisis, the Legislature was

9

encouraged to more than double the number of state-funded civil legal aid attorneys. 35

10

5.36

11

Judiciary. Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst informed the Legislature that the courts were

12

straining to meet a growing need for interpreters, noting Washington experienced a 50

13

percent increase since 2000 in residents with limited English proficiency. Chief Justice

14

Fairhurst also noted the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) established two new

15

task forces to educate the Legislature on funding necessary for education and training

16

and interpreter services.

17

5.37

18

2019. Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst reminded the Legislature that Washington is one of

interpreter services, an issue first brought up in 2007. Funding for interpreter services

20

remained flat since 2008, despite the fact that the number of languages represented in

21

state courts increased 30 percent. Chief Justice Fairhurst also emphasized a need for

22

24

36

the top 10 most diverse states for languages, and reiterated a need for funding for

19

23

2018. The known issue of funding for interpreters resurfaced in the 2018 State of the

35 36

2016 State of the Judiciary. January 2016 (courts.wa.gov) 2018 State of the Judiciary. January 2018 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 32

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

statewide funding for education and training for judicial officers and court staff, noting

2

that rural courts have greater barriers to training without adequate funding. A recent

3

study found that 50 percent of judicial officers and 63 percent of court administrators

4

received no training in their first six months on the job. 37

5

5.38

2020. Outgoing Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst listed “adequate court funding from the

6

state, easing the burden on local jurisdictions” as a key area impacting the judicial

7

branch. The issue of pretrial services was raised by Spokane Municipal Court Judge

8

Mary Logan who notified the Legislature that few alternatives to incarceration were

9

available to judicial officers, and that the state could save $6-12 million if many of the

10

4,700 persons awaiting trial in jail were released using pretrial alternatives. The

11

familiar issue of jury pay was brought up again.

12

Financial hardship was the second most quoted reason for excuse from jury service (behind undeliverable summonses). Minority and low-income persons are disproportionately affected by Washington’s low juror pay — a state minimum of $10 per day set in 1959, which can only be increased to $25 by jurisdictions if they have the budget.

13 14 15

The Legislature was also notified that lack of childcare prevents low-income minority

16

populations from being able to serve on juries. One of the strongest concerns the courts

17

expressed to the Legislature was a lack of funding for court education.

18

a. Just like a beautiful old schoolhouse, Washington court education has a vibrant history but is in need of repair. Funding has been stagnant and unstable for a decade while courts are experiencing historic levels of judicial and staff turnover; while technology, science, laws and public expectations are changing rapid-fire; and while important justice innovations such as therapeutic courts and pre-trial reform are growing but in need of informed personnel… New judges can serve many months before getting any training “and are left trying to learn what they need on their own,” said Pierce County District Court Judge Judy Jae Jasprica, BJA Member Chair and Chair of the Court Education Committee. Another big concern is the lack

19 20 21 22 23 24

37

2019 State of the Judiciary. January 2019 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 33

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

of ability for small and rural courts to send their judges and staff to conferences or programs, she said. Additional online education is needed, but that takes funding. 38

2 3

5.39

4

2021. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens discussed the need for basic updates in the courts.

5

The average age of courthouses in Washington is more than 90 years, and many courts share space with county and city offices. Courthouses are typically bustling with people. Retrofitting physical spaces to improve safety, obtaining additional locations for jury trials, and installing the technology needed to maintain operations and access to justice during the pandemic, has been one of courts’ biggest challenges.

6 7 8 9

Chief Justice Stephens also emphasized the increasing need for technology and staff

10

to support that technology as reliance on technology during the pandemic intensifies.

11

While we know many court proceedings can take place by remote means, increased reliance on technology brings into stark relief the vast digital divide that exists among court users, and among courts themselves.

12 13

Justice Stephens pointed out that the problems the court sees today are not new, that

14

even before the pandemic courts were “strained under the weight of growing

15

caseloads and inadequate resources.” 39

16

5.40

Chief Justices have raised the same issues of court funding to the Legislature for more

17

than two decades. Civil legal aid is in crisis as a result of the cumulative effect of

18

decades of funding neglect. The state is not meeting its constitutional mandates. Civil

19

trials are facing inordinate delays. Court technology is decrepit. Public defense is

20

inadequate for those who cannot pay for legal representation.

21

compensated enough. There is an increasing need for interpreter services that is not

Jurors are not

22 23 24

38 39

2020 State of the Judiciary. January 2020 (courts.wa.gov) 2021 State of the Judiciary. January 2021 (courts.wa.gov)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 34

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

met. Courthouse security is inadequate. Pretrial services are not available. Education

2

and training for judges and court staff is insufficient. And overall, the same overarching

3

problem remains—local jurisdictions are burdened with but cannot meet the funding

4

of a disproportionate percent of trial court costs.

5

D. FAILURE OF LEGISLATIVE FUNDING TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE COURTHOUSES.

6 7

5.41

had the eighth most documented courthouse security incidents in the country. 40

8 9

According to the National Center for State Courts from 2005 to 2012, Washington State

5.42

Twenty-five years ago Timothy Blackwell entered the second floor of the King County

10

Courthouse to attend his dissolution of marriage trial. Armed with a 9mm handgun, he

11

walked freely through the courthouse doors. Once inside, he shot and killed Susana

12

Blackwell his wife, their unborn child, and Susana’s two friends Phoebe Dizon and

13

Veronica Johnson in the presence of court staff.

14

5.43

In 2012, a man walked unimpeded into the Grays Harbor County Courthouse, which

15

had no weapons screening. Armed with a knife, the intruder attacked and stabbed a

16

Deputy Sheriff on the first floor. Judge David Edwards was on the third floor,

17

witnessed the attack, and intervened. The intruder stabbed the judge in the shoulder.

18

The man then wrestled the Deputy’s gun from her, fired two shots, and fled.

19

5.44

Just months before that incident, the presiding judge of Grays Harbor County sued the

20

County over inadequate funding. 41 In a disturbingly accurate forewarning of what was

21

to come Judge Godfrey alleged:

22 23 24

40 Status of Court Security in State Courts – a National Perspective, National Center for State Courts, June 2013, p. 49. Status of Court Security in State Courts: A National Perspective - Courthouse Facilities - National Center for State Courts (oclc.org) 41 Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County Cause No. 11.2.02714.4. Filed December 2011.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 35

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

By way of further example, the Superior Court has continuously requested and Defendants (the County) have continuously failed for 15 years to provide funding to the Superior Court for any courtroom or courthouse security. The Superior Court is the only superior court in Washington State with more than one judge that is totally without courtroom security.

2 3 4

As a consequence of Defendants’ acts in Section 3.7, the personal safety of the Judges, the Superior Court staff, and the public is threatened. Anyone can enter the courthouse carrying weapons. Judicial staff is at risk from and has been forced to quell arguments between litigants in the courthouse. Within the past two years, two attorneys were physically assaulted in the Superior Court; a defendant charged on of the Judges in a courtroom; a man came to the courthouse armed with a knife and asking for the directions to the office of a Judge; and there was inadequate security protection available when a Judge received a death threat during trial. 42

5 6 7 8 9

5.45

10

In the years leading up to the Blackwell and Kravetz violent incidents the courts requested funds to install metal detectors but were rebuffed. To this day security

11

continues to be grossly inadequate in most county courthouses. 43

12

5.46

13

In a 2018 report involving a survey of all superior courts, one judge noted: [REDACTED] County is EXTREMELY lax as to the security in the courthouse and courtroom. The Sheriff’s office only provide protection when transporting inmates from the jail for hearings. The rest of the time our courtroom is open for any individual to access without ANY screening at all. None of the doors from the outside the public uses to access the courthouse have any metal detectors. There are no safety procedures in place for ANY incident. There has never been an active shooter drill or training in the courthouse. Just two years ago, at my insistence, the duress alarms were tested since I did not know how to use them or deactivate the. And even then, the police did not respond.

[REDACTED] County is VERY lacking! 44

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of Complaint Cause No. 11.2.02714.4 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 1.

44 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 65.

(Emphasis in original).

42 43

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 36

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.47

Of those courts that are able to conduct weapons screening one-third do not screen all

2

of their public entrances. These statistics are even more alarming when considering

3

the number of weapons that are confiscated during the screenings that do take place. 45

4

5.48

A majority of courts that do security screenings prevented over 100 weapons from

5

entering each of their courthouses just in 2016. One large superior court that year

6

prevented entry of 1,711 knives and 127 guns. 46

7

5.49

Roughly 28 percent of superior courts do not have security cameras. Of those that do, only 64 percent have them in individual courtrooms. 47

8 9

5.50

In 2017, the State Supreme Court adopted GR 36 re court security noting that a “safe

10

courthouse environment is fundamental to the administration of justice. Employees,

11

case participants, and members of the public should expect safe and secure

12

courthouses.” 48

13

5.51

In 2019, King County Presiding Judge Jim Rogers closed the primary entrance to the

14

King County Superior Courthouse due to attacks on litigants, jurors, attorneys, and

15

employees: “These safety conditions have the effect of discouraging and denying

16

access and therefore justice to all who would seek it from our Court.” 49

17

5.52

Increased security funding is needed to address weapons screening, security training, and implementation of security policies and procedures. 50

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 6 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 6.

47 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 6-7.

48 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 5.

49 The Seattle Times December 2, 2019. Judge closes Third Avenue entrance to King County Courthouse, citing security concerns | The Seattle Times 50 Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 6.

45 46

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 37

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.53

The bottom line is Washington’s superior courts are dangerously lacking in weapons screening, training, and security planning. 51

2 3

5.54

The reason for unsafe courthouses is lack of funding.

E. FAILURE OF LEGISLATIVE FUNDING TO PROVIDE FOR FUNDAMENTAL COURT NEEDS 52

4 5

5.55

6

Currently, when trying a case in King County Superior Court, located in Seattle, a locale known as of the most technologically advanced in the world, litigants usually

7

share a single electrical outlet. This means extension cords must be brought in and

8

taped to the floor to then minimize tripping hazards. If a video projection screen is

9

needed, a litigant/attorney can inquire if one of the handful of televisions is available,

10

but usually the parties must bring in their own equipment. Jurors and attorneys have no

11

monitors, severely impacting the ability to produce a modern trial.

12

In the Ride the

Duck trial that this firm participated in between 2018 and 2019, the parties had to bring

13

in their own electrical generator to power monitors and other equipment the parties

14

needed for trial since the court had no such resources.

15

5.56

16

In other jurisdictions such as Grant County, before the pandemic the court could not accept e-filed documents due to lack of technology. All hearings needed to be held in

17

person, even for minor matters such as continuance requests, because of the lack of a

18

functional phone conference system.

19 20 21 22 23 24

Superior Court Judge’s Association: Washington State County Courthouse Security Report (2018). Page 9.

2015 State of the Judiciary Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen on behalf of the courts of Washington. january2015.pdf (wa.gov) 51 52

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 38

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.57

Accessing the justice system requires language interpreters. Washington residents

2

speak more than 200 languages. As of 2013 interpreters were needed in 89 different

3

languages.

4

5.58

Civil legal aid in urban and rural locations is inadequate.

5

5.59

Availability of legal materials through law libraries is inadequate.

6

5.60

Help for self-represented persons is inadequate.

7

5.61

Services for physically challenged or mentally ill persons in court are inadequate.

8

5.62

Programs to address the unique justice needs of minors, the elderly and other

9

vulnerable populations are inadequate.

10

5.63

Education for judicial officers and staff is inadequate.

11

5.64

The numbers of judges is inadequate.

12

5.65

Judicial staff numbers are inadequate.

13

5.66

Courtrooms and offices with adequate electrical wiring, air handling systems, and

14 15

other basic features are lacking.

5.67

Infrastructure that allows courts to function safely and efficiently in the modern world

16

is inadequate, including: a) modern information systems that can efficiently process

17

more than 20 million transactions per month, b) systems that can access and share

18

information; video technology, c) electronic filing capacity, and (d) electronic storage

19

capacity.

20

5.68

Information technology and security is inadequate.

21

5.69

Dispute resolution services and problem-solving courts and court programs do not

22 23 24

exist in adequate numbers.

F. FAILURE OF LEGISLATIVE FUNDING TO ADDRESS COVID AND OTHER UNUSUAL OR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 39

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1 2

5.70

COVID-19 outbreak in Washington. This resulted in an extended “Stay Home, Stay

3

Healthy” order directing non-essential businesses to close, banning public gatherings,

4 5 6 7 8 9

and requiring Washingtonians to stay home except to pursue essential activities.

5.71

At all times the courts were recognized as conducting essential activities.

5.72

Many court facilities in Washington were (and many still are) ill-equipped to effectively comply with social distancing and other public health requirements.

5.73

12

measures taken for public safety.

5.74

not only trials and other hearings, but also clerk’s office operations, facilities planning,

14

16 17 18

technology improvements, and the general administration of justice.

5.75

21 22

On October 13, 2020, the supreme court ordered that a previous order suspending all civil jury trials until at least July 6, 2020 was to be lifted.

5.76

Since October 13, 2020, the superior courts have conducted a fraction of the number of civil jury trials that generally would have occurred but for COVID and the need for

19 20

On October 13, 2020, the supreme court ordered that court operations are essential and recognized the authority of all courts to conduct essential court operations, including

13

15

The Supreme Court of Washington declared on October 13, 2020, that court operations could be conducted by alternative means, in alternative settings, and with extra

10 11

On February 29, 2020, Governor Inslee proclaimed a state of emergency due to the

additional expenditures to ensure a safe proceeding.

5.77

Since October 13, 2020, the majority of civil jury trial settings have been placed by the courts on standby, in limbo, or continued into the future.

23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 40

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.78

In general the courts from bigger wealthier counties have fared better in terms of

2

holding trials and managing the additional challenges of the pandemic, than the smaller

3

less affluent ones.

4

5.79

The main reason for delay of civil jury trials is lack of adequate funding to address: a)

5

the backlog of criminal trials, b) the backlog of family law trials, c) the lack of

6

technology resources in courts of smaller venues, d) the lack of physical resources to

7

hold socially distanced trials, and e) the lack of sufficient numbers of judges and

8

support staff.

9

5.80

From the time of Governor Inslee’s February proclamation to the present, the State of

10

Washington has not provided the Courts with adequate court funding such that the

11

Plaintiffs’ trial dates continue to languish and have been pushed forward with no end

12

date in sight.

13

5.81

On February 19, 2021, the Washington Courts Board for Judicial Administration

14

drafted a letter to the Legislature fully contained in the website link but excerpted as

15

follows: 53

16

District, municipal, and superior courts face serious case backlogs that affect thousands of people. The majority of counties still are unable to safely conduct jury trials and courts are processing only about half their normal civil caseloads, due to the challenges of virtual proceedings. In many counties, prosecuting attorneys have delayed filing criminal charges so as not to add to current backlogs, but these prosecutions have only been delayed, not eliminated. Protection orders and mental health cases are surging. Courts also anticipate a flood of eviction cases and other civil matters that have been on hold for almost a full year. Counties and cities currently are facing significant budget shortfalls as a result of the pandemic, leading to program and staff reductions. Most courts expect it will take years to work through civil and criminal case backlogs.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Board for Judicial Administration Washington Courts Meeting Packet. Feb. 19, 2021. https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/bja_meetings/BJA%202021%2002%2019%20MTG%20MTP.pdf 53

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 41

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

5.82

Plaintiffs Jennifer Ralston and Caleb McNamara filed their wrongful murder civil

2

lawsuit in 2015 for the death of their father in 2014. Trial settings in Grant County are

3

not allowed until after all discovery has been completed. Grant County has no ability

4

to do zoom trials due to lack of technology. It is unable to hold a socially distanced

5

trial within the confines of its courthouse. The trial in this case was moved by the Court

6

against the stipulated request of the parties from January 25, 2021, to March 7, 2022.

7

This trial date may be moved again by the court. Certain key witnesses are elderly and

8

may not survive until the delayed trial date. The Defendant resides in the plaintiff’s

9

deceased father’s home and funds from life insurance policies remain in the court

10 11

registry pending trial of this case.

5.83

Plaintiff Braeden Simon was almost killed in a motorcycle versus vehicle collision in

12

February 2020. He has been unable to work since that time and his medical bills are

13

over $1 million. The trial of this case was moved by the court without explanation

14

from September 2021 to February 2022 and without any input from any party. Trial

15

date delay impacts this vulnerable victim on a global scale.

16

5.84

Plaintiffs Ekenezer, Hughey, Kauchak, Pickett, Pierce, Swanson, Wieser, and Zoschke,

17

joined in protest with the throngs of people who were outraged and dismayed by the

18

murder of George Floyd and who wanted to show support for the Black Lives Matter

19

movement. The physical and mental injury claims of these plaintiffs are accompanied

20

with the basic question that our entire community wants answered: was the City

21

justified in widely attacking constitutionally protected peaceful protesters who did not

22

engage in physical aggression or otherwise pose a danger to the officers. While the

23

Federal Court has addressed some of these issues – by among other things holding the

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 42

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

City in contempt, and other commissions or groups have made critical studies and

2

findings, this seminal lawsuit awaits adjudication in King County Superior Court into

3

the unknown future. While the Court has tentatively set a trial date in 2023, that trial

4

date remains at risk due to lack of sufficient court resources.

5

5.85

These plaintiffs represent the thousands of people who are involved in legal actions in

6

Washington State that are impacted by unconstitutionally inadequate funding by the

7

legislature.

VI.

8 9 10

6.1

13

exist and carry out its constitutional duties.

6.2

Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be

15

17

otherwise.”

6.3

Legislature’s failure to abide by the Constitution in relationship to funding the judicial

19

21 22 23 24

Plaintiffs and the class members have been injured by not being able to have their legal matters handled in a constitutionally proper and timely manner due specifically to the

18

20

The Defendant State of Washington is in violation of Washington State Constitution Article I Section 29: “CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this

14

16

The Defendant State of Washington has the duty to abide by the Washington State Constitution, specifically in funding the judicial branch of government so that it may

11 12

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS – FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION

branch of government, to wit: the courts.

6.4

Any claim of inadequate funds provides no legally cognizable justification for failing to abide by the Constitution.

VII.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS – FAILURE TO FUND RESULTING IN UNNECESSARY DELAY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 43

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1 2

7.1

Constitution to provide reasonable and adequate funding for the courts so they can

3 4 5

engage in the administration of justice without unnecessary delay.

7.2

8

administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.”

7.3

11

court funding by the Legislature.

7.4

poverty to curtail access to timely justice is no less evidence of a constitutional breach

13

than if the Legislature and executive branch had directly ordered the suspension of

14

judicial process in order to avoid adequately funding the courts’ constitutional

15

function.

16

VIII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS – FAILURE TO FUND RESULTING IN FAILURE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY INVIOLATE

17

19

8.1

22 23 24

The Defendant State of Washington has the duty to abide by the Washington State Constitution to provide reasonable and adequate funding for the courts so the right of

20 21

The constitutional violation arises both from the delay itself, as well as the fact that delay is caused, in large part, by inadequate funding. That the courts are forced by their

12

18

Plaintiffs and the class members have been injured by not being able to have their legal matters handled by the courts without unnecessary delay due specifically to inadequate

9 10

The Defendant State of Washington is in violation of Washington State Constitution Article I Section 10: “ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. In all cases shall be

6 7

The Defendant State of Washington has the duty to abide by the Washington State

trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

8.2

The Defendant State of Washington is in violation of Washington State Constitution Article I Section 21: “TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 44

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in any court

2

of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties

3

interested is given thereto.”

4

8.3

The Plaintiffs and the Class members have been injured by not being able to have their

5

right to jury trial which is to remain inviolate due specifically to inadequate court

6

funding by the legislature.

7

IX.

8

9.1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from the Court that the State of Washington’s

9

failure to reasonably and adequately fund the courts violates the Separation of Powers

10

doctrine and prevents the courts from performing their constitutional and statutory

11

duties, resulting in injury to the Plaintiffs.

12

9.2

The Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaration from the Court that the State of

13

Washington’s failure to reasonably and adequately fund the courts violates the

14

constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs to access to justice.

X.

15 16

10.1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Plaintiffs have a clear legal and equitable right to access to justice that has been

17

and continues to be jeopardized and denied due to the State of Washington’s failure to

18

reasonably and adequately fund the courts.

19

10.2

The Plaintiffs have a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of their right to access

20

to justice caused by Defendant State of Washington’s past and continuing actions in

21

failing to reasonably and adequately fund the courts.

22 23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 45

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

10.3

The Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if Defendant State of

2

Washington is not enjoined from passing additional state budgets that fail to provide

3

reasonable and adequate funding to the courts.

4

10.4

The Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if Defendant State of

5

Washington is not required to provide reasonable and adequate funding to the courts,

6

including but not limited to:

7

•

Adequate interpreters.

8

•

Civil legal aid in urban and rural locations.

9

•

Legal materials accessible through law libraries.

10

•

Help for self-represented persons.

11

•

Services for physically challenged or mentally ill persons.

12

•

Programs to address the unique justice needs of minors, the elderly, and other

13

vulnerable populations.

14

•

Education for judicial officers and staff.

15

•

Adequate numbers of judges.

•

Adequate numbers of staff.

•

Courtrooms and offices with adequate electrical wiring, air handling systems,

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

and other basic features.

•

Infrastructure that allows courts to function safely and efficiently in the modern world including: a) modern information systems that can efficiently process more than 20 million transactions per month, b) systems that can access and share information, video technology, c) electronic filing capacity, and d) electronic storage capacity.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 46

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

•

Adequate information technology and security.

2

•

Dispute resolution services and problem-solving court services.

3

•

Reasonable courtroom facilities to allow for the conduct of jury trials

4

inviolate.

5

•

6

Reasonable accommodations for social distancing and/or other preservation of health requirements.

7

•

8

The hiring of additional judges and court staff to address of the backlog of cases.

9

•

10

Reasonable technological upgrades to allow for adequate civil trials in accordance with a modern society.

11

•

Such other and further budgetary needs as determined by the courts for the

12

administration of constitutionally mandated access to justice and jury trials

13

inviolate, without undue delay.

14 15

XI. 11.1

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – MANDAMUS

In the alternative, Plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus from the Court directing

16

the State of Washington to provide reasonable and adequate funding to the courts as

17

mandated by the Washington State Constitution under Article I Sections 10, 21 and 29

18

and Article IV Section 1 so that our courts can fulfill their own constitutional duty to

19

administer justice without due delay and maintain Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a

20

trial by jury inviolate.

21

11.2

Other than through the issuance of a writ of mandamus, Plaintiffs do not have a plain,

22

speedy and/or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to address the State of

23

Washington’s failure to provide reasonable and adequate court funding, without which

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 47

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

they may not receive their constitutionally guaranteed rights to justice “without

2

unnecessary delay” and inviolate right to trial by jury.

3

11.3

Other than through the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the Legislature’s refusal to

4

provide constitutionally adequate funding to the Judicial Branch unduly interferes with

5

the judiciary so that it cannot effectively exercise and discharge its constitutionally

6

assigned responsibilities for which Plaintiffs are beneficiaries so that they can pursue

7

justice in the courts.

8

11.4

Other than through the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the harm visited upon the

9

Judicial Branch and Plaintiffs’ rights to access to the courts and to trial by jury without

10

unnecessary delay will only be exacerbated over time and risk even more severe

11

constitutional deprivations of Plaintiffs’ rights that will be difficult, if at all possible, to

12

remedy.

13

11.5

Plaintiffs are beneficially interested in the issuance of a writ of mandamus because they

14

have suffered undue hardship and prejudice by not having their personal injury cases

15

heard in a timely manner due to the Legislature’s longstanding and continual refusal to

16

adequately fund Washington courts.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

XII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. A declaration that this action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to CR 23(b)(3).

2. An order declaring that the State of Washington should immediately provide adequate and reasonable funding to the courts so that the Plaintiffs may be restored their rights to access to justice and jury trials inviolate and all without undue delay.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 48

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

3. A declaration that the State of Washington has violated Article I Section 10 of the

2

Washington State Constitution by failing to adequately fund the state courts, thus harming

3

the Plaintiffs.

4

4. A declaration that the State of Washington has violated Article I Section 21 of the

5

Washington State Constitution by failing to adequately fund the state courts, thus harming

6

the Plaintiffs.

7

5. An order temporarily restraining the State of Washington and all agencies under its

8

direction from taking the following actions: issuing any budget that fails to provide for

9

reasonable funding of the courts of the State of Washington and to provide for the

10

immediate full resumption of access to justice and jury trials inviolate both without further

11

undue delay, including but not limited to funding for:

12

a. Adequate interpreters.

13

b. Civil legal aid in urban and rural locations.

14

c. Legal materials accessible through law libraries.

15

d. Help for self-represented persons.

16

e. Services for physically challenged or mentally ill persons.

17

f. Programs to address the unique justice needs of minors, the elderly, and other

18

vulnerable populations.

19

g. Education for judicial officers and staff.

20

h. Adequate numbers of judges.

21

i. Adequate numbers of staff.

22

j. Courtrooms and offices with adequate electrical wiring, air handling systems, and

23 24

other basic features.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 49

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

k. Infrastructure that allows courts to function safely and efficiently in the modern

2

world including: a) modern information systems that can efficiently process more

3

than 20 million transactions per month, b) systems that can access and share

4

information, video technology, c) electronic filing capacity, and d) electronic

5

storage capacity.

6

l. Adequate information technology and security.

7

m. Dispute resolution services and problem-solving court services.

8

n. Reasonable courtroom facilities to allow for the conduct of jury trials inviolate.

9

o. Reasonable accommodations for social distancing and/or other preservation of

10

health requirements.

11

p. The hiring of additional judges and court staff to address of the backlog of cases.

12

q. Reasonable technological upgrades to allow for adequate civil trials in accordance

13

with a modern society.

14

r. Such other and further budgetary needs as determined by the courts for the

15

administration of constitutionally mandated access to justice and jury trials

16

inviolate, without undue delay.

17

6. An order preliminarily enjoining the State of Washington and all agencies under its

18

direction from issuing any budget that fails to provide for full and reasonable funding of

19

the Superior Courts of the State of Washington to provide for the immediate full

20

resumption of access to justice and jury trials inviolate both without further undue delay,

21

including but not limited to funding for:

22

a. Adequate interpreters.

23

b. Civil legal aid in urban and rural locations.

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 50

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

c. Legal materials accessible through law libraries.

2

d. Help for self-represented persons.

3

e. Services for physically challenged or mentally ill persons.

4

f. Programs to address the unique justice needs of minors, the elderly, and other

5

vulnerable populations.

6

g. Education for judicial officers and staff.

7

h. Adequate numbers of judges.

8

i. Adequate numbers of staff.

9

j. Courtrooms and offices with adequate electrical wiring, air handling systems, and

10 11

other basic features. k. Infrastructure that allows courts to function safely and efficiently in the modern

12

world including: a) modern information systems that can efficiently process more

13

than 20 million transactions per month, b) systems that can access and share

14

information, video technology, c) electronic filing capacity, and d) electronic

15

storage capacity.

16

l. Adequate information technology and security.

17

m. Dispute resolution services and problem-solving court services.

18

n. Reasonable courtroom facilities to allow for the conduct of jury trials inviolate.

19

o. Reasonable accommodations for social distancing and/or other preservation of

20

health requirements.

21

p. The hiring of additional judges and court staff to address of the backlog of cases.

22

q. Reasonable technological upgrades to allow for adequate civil trials in accordance

23 24

with a modern society.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 51

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

r. Such other and further budgetary needs as determined by the courts for the

2

administration of constitutionally mandated access to justice and jury trials

3

inviolate, without undue delay.

4

7. An order permanently enjoining the State and all agencies under its direction from

5

issuing any budget that fails to provide for adequate funding of the Superior Courts of the

6

State of Washington to provide for the immediate full resumption of access to justice and

7

jury trials inviolate both without further undue delay, including but not limited to funding

8

for:

9

a. Adequate interpreters.

10

b. Civil legal aid in urban and rural locations.

11

c. Legal materials accessible through law libraries.

12

d. Help for self-represented persons.

13

e. Services for physically challenged or mentally ill persons.

14

f. Programs to address the unique justice needs of minors, the elderly, and other

15

vulnerable populations.

16

g. Education for judicial officers and staff.

17

h. Adequate numbers of judges.

18

i. Adequate numbers of staff.

19

j. Courtrooms and offices with adequate electrical wiring, air handling systems, and

20 21

other basic features. k. Infrastructure that allows courts to function safely and efficiently in the modern

22

world including: a) modern information systems that can efficiently process more

23

than 20 million transactions per month, b) systems that can access and share

24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 52

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

information, video technology, c) electronic filing capacity, and d) electronic

2

storage capacity.

3

l. Adequate information technology and security.

4

m. Dispute resolution services and problem-solving court services.

5

n. Reasonable courtroom facilities to allow for the conduct of jury trials inviolate.

6

o. Reasonable accommodations for social distancing and/or other preservation of

7

health requirements.

8

p. The hiring of additional judges and court staff to address of the backlog of cases.

9

q. Reasonable technological upgrades to allow for adequate civil trials in accordance

10

with a modern society.

11

r. Such other and further budgetary needs as determined by the courts for the

12

administration of constitutionally mandated access to justice and jury trials

13

inviolate, without undue delay

14

8. A writ of mandamus from the Court directing the State of Washington to provide

15

reasonable and adequate funding to the courts as required by the Washington State

16

Constitution so that our courts can fulfill their own constitutional duty to administer justice

17

without due delay, to maintain its position as a co-equal branch of government, and to keep

18

the Plaintiffs’ right to a trial by jury inviolate.

19 20 21 22 23 24

9. For judgment against the State of Washington for costs of suit, including the Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees.

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2021.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 53

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777

1

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE

2 3

/s/ Karen Koehler Karen K. Koehler, WSBA #15325 Garth L. Jones, WSBA #14795 Daniel R. Laurence, WSBA #19697 Gemma N. Zanowski, WSBA #43259 Edward H. Moore, WSBA #41584 Counsel for Plaintiffs

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE CIVIL COURT FUNDING - 54

STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE 3600 15th Ave W, #300 | Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: 206-448-1777