Hon. Jim Rogers
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
ADAM JOHSNON, CARRIE REES JOHNSON, AND EMMETT JOHNSON, a minor child, (the family of Mattheis Johnson, deceased), Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendant.
No. 25-2-32127-4 SEA
CITY OF SEATTLE’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION OF NUISANCE AND FOR ABATEMENT [Clerk’s Action Required]
COMES NOW defendant City of Seattle (the “City”), by and through its undersigned attorneys of record, answers and presents the following Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint:
I. INTRODUCTION
The City admits that some trespassers at Gas Works Park who have climbed or attempted to climb the appurtenances to the fenced-in towers have been injured and died in falls. The City admits that the Parks Department recently applied to the Landmarks Preservation Board for permission to remove appurtenances to the towers at Gas Works Park and that the Landmarks Board denied that request. The City denies that the Landmarks Board is a City Department. Rather, the Landmarks
CITY OF SEATTLE’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION OF NUISANCE AND FOR ABATEMENT –1
Board has independent authority pursuant to Seattle Municipal Code 25.12 et. seq. The City further denies that the City has created a nuisance at Gas Works Park. The City otherwise denies Paragraph 1.
II. PARTIES
2.1
Answering Paragraph 2.1, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
2.2 Answering Paragraph 2.2, the City admits this paragraph.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.1
Answering Paragraph 3.1, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City admits it owns and manages Gas Works Park, which is situated within King County, denies the allegation that the property is a “nuisance” and denies characterization throughout the complaint of the subject property at Gas Works Park as “the nuisance property,” and otherwise denies for lack of sufficient information.
IV. HISTORY OF GAS WORKS PARK
4.1
Answering Paragraph 4.1, the City admits that a coal and oil gasification plant operated on the property now known as Gas Works Park until approximately 1956 and denies the remaining allegations for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.2 Answering Paragraph 4.2, the City admits the plant operation resulted in environmental pollution and otherwise denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.3 Answering Paragraph 4.3, the City admits that in or around the 1970’s the City planned to transform the property into a public park.
4.4
Answering Paragraph 4.4, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
4.5 Answering the first Paragraph 4.5, the City the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
4.5 [sic] Answering the second Paragraph 4.5, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.6 Answering Paragraph 4.6, the City admits the park was open by 1976 and otherwise denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.7 Answering Paragraph 4.7, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
4.8 Answering Paragraph 4.8, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.9 Answering Paragraph 4.9, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
4.10 Answering Paragraph 4.10, the City admits that cleanup work at Gas Works Park has been ongoing and that an additional project is to begin construction in 2029, and otherwise denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
4.11 Answering Paragraph 4.11, the City admits.
4.12 Answering Paragraph 4.12, the City denies.
4.13
// // //
Answering Paragraph 4.13, the City denies.
V. THE CITY’S NOTICE AND FAILURE TO CURE
5.1 Answering Paragraph 5.1, the City admits that 15 fall incidents have occurred since 2008, but denies for lack of information and belief that SFD responded to the 14 incidents that are described only by year and injury.
5.2 Answering Paragraph 5.2, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.3 Answering Paragraph 5.3, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.4 Answering Paragraph 5.4, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
5.5 to 5.14 The City notes that there are no paragraphs numbered 5.5 through 5.14 in the Amended Complaint.
5.15 Answering Paragraph 5.15, the cited document is its own best evidence. The City denies that it back tracked on the plan.
5.16 Answering Paragraph 5.16, the cited document is its own best evidence.
5.17 Answering Paragraph 5.17, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
5.18 Answering Paragraph 5.18, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.19 Answering Paragraph 5.19 the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.20 Answering Paragraph 5.20, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
5.21
Answering Paragraph 5.21, the City admits.
5.22 Answering Paragraph 5.22, the City admits some piping extends past the fence and otherwise denies
5.23 Answering Paragraph 5.23, the City admits some piping extends past the fence, otherwise the City states the document is its own best evidence and no response is required and otherwise denies.
5.24 Answering Paragraph 5.24, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required and otherwise denies.
5.25 Answering Paragraph 5.25, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
5.26 Answering Paragraph 5.26, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.27 Answering Paragraph 5.27, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
5.28 Answering Paragraph 5.28, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information
5.29 Answering Paragraph 5.29, the City denies for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
VI. CITY HALTS ITS EMERGENCY SELECTIVE DECONSTRUCTION
6.1
Answering Paragraph 6.1, the City admits that on or around September 9, 2025 it proposed a plan for “emergency selective deconstruction” of the “Cracking Towers,” and otherwise denies.
6.2
Answering Paragraph 6.2, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.3 Answering Paragraph 6.3, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.4 Answering Paragraph 6.4, the City admits it worked with Osborn Architects and hazmat consultant Ryan Hunter and otherwise denies.
6.5 Answering Paragraph 6.5, the City admits.
6.6 Answering Paragraph 6.6, the City admits the “Gas Works Park “Cracking Towers”: Emergency Selective Deconstruction” plan includes detailed renderings and otherwise denies
6.7 Answering Paragraph 6.7, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.8 Answering Paragraph 6.8, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.9 Answering Paragraph 6.9, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.10 Answering Paragraph 6.10, the cited document is its own best evidence, therefore no response is required.
6.11 Answering Paragraph 6.11, the City admits that a proposal for selective deconstruction was presented to the Landmarks Preservation Board and otherwise denies.
6.12 Answering Paragraph 6.12, the City admits that selective deconstruction has not yet occurred and otherwise denies.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
7.1
Answering Paragraph 7.1, the City responds that it re-alleges the allegations contained in the prior paragraphs, which are re-answered in the same manner as set forth above.
7.2
Answering Paragraph 7.2, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.3
Answering Paragraph 7.3, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.4
Answering Paragraph 7.4, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.5
Answering Paragraph 7.5, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.6
Answering Paragraph 7.6, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City admits that it has designated funds for modification work to the Cracking Towers and otherwise denies the remaining allegations contained therein.
7.7
Answering Paragraph 7.7, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.8
Answering Paragraph 7.8, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
7.9
Answering Paragraph 7.9, the City responds that it calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the City denies.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Section VIII contains a prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the requests for relief in this section should be denied. The City again notes that the Landmarks Board has independent authority and is not a City department.
The City denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
By way of further answer, without admitting any allegations previously denied, and as to its affirmative and other defenses, the City would show that at the time of the filing of its Answer it has not yet had a full opportunity to conduct a complete inquiry into the facts underlying this lawsuit, including the alleged damages. Based upon its knowledge, information and belief at the present time, however, the City asserts the following affirmative defenses:
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for public or private nuisance against the City upon which relief may be granted. See RCW 7.48 et. seq.; see also Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc., 1 Wash. 3d 925, 931, 533 P.3d 1170, 1172–73 (2023); Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash.2d 1, 13, 954 P.2d 877 (1998).
To the extent that Plaintiffs later amend their Complaint or seek other relief the City reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses The City further reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses, counterclaims, or cross-claims as may be appropriate based upon future discovery. Nothing contained in this Answer should be construed as a waiver of any such additional defenses.
Upon request, and after conducting sufficient discovery, the City will withdraw any of the affirmative defenses unsupported by the facts revealed in pre-trial discovery and investigation, should there be any.
WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that the City be awarded its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and that the City be granted such other and further relief as the Court finds just and equitable.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2025.
ANN DAVISON Seattle City Attorney
By: /s/Susan MacMenamin
Susan MacMenamin, WSBA# 42742
Joseph Groshong, WSBA# 41593
Tobi M. Andrews, WSBA# 51969
Assistant City Attorney
E-mail: Susan.MacMenamin@seattle.gov
E-Mail: Joseph.Groshong@seattle.gov
E-Mail: Tobi.Andrews@seattle.gov
Seattle City Attorney’s Office
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 684-8200
Attorneys for Defendant City of Seattle
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 19th day of November, 2025, I caused a true and correct copy of this document to be served on the following in the manner indicated below:
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Karen K. Koehler, WSBA #15325
Mo Hamoudi, WSBA #48512 Stritmatter Law
3600 15th Ave W, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98119
/s/Elisabeth Connett
Via Email
karenk@stritmatter.com mo@stritmatter.com kristinm@stritmatter.com jamiek@stritmatter.com
Elisabeth Connett, Legal Assistant