A King County Superior Court judge has ordered the city of Shoreline to pay attorney fees, costs and penalties to the Shoreline Merchants Association totaling $18,153. Judge Jim Doerty issued the written order Oct. 27.
The Shoreline Merchants Association took the city to court this past February, appealing the city’s design for widening Aurora Avenue North from 145th to 165th. The SMA argued that the city did not take into consideration the economic impact that widening the roadway and building medians and sidewalks with planter strips would have on existing businesses in its environmental review of the project. On Sept. 23, Judge Doerty dismissed the case in its entirety, stating that business and property values are not appropriate topics for the State Environmental Protection Act to evaluate.
In the course of preparing for the case, the SMA requested access to numerous documents and records, which the group says the city delayed in providing. The SMA also filed a motion requesting the documents and that the city pay the group’s attorney fees. The judge ordered the city disclose the information. The city provided some of the information that was requested, but the rest it provided to the judge alone to look at, arguing client/attorney privileges and executive session protected it from disclosure. The judge agreed, reversing his disclosure order.
On Oct. 20 Foster Pepper and Sheffelman, on behalf of the city, filed for an extension on SMA’s motions for the city to pay attorney fees and costs, for a brief it filed a day late. Four days later, after considering everything in the case, Judge Doerty ordered the city pay attorney fees totaling $15,940, pay $113.75 in costs and $50 a day for 42 days, or a total of $2,100 for delaying to provide requested documents in a timely fashion.
“For us, it’s a big victory because as we see it, the city will have to honor the disclosure process more and be able to provide us more documentation to take to the appeal,” said Shoreline Merchants Association spokesperson Rick Stephens. The SMA is appealing the judge’s dismissal to the state Court of Appeals.
“We were surprised,” City Attorney Ian Sievers said. “How can they get most of the costs when the judge reversed his disclosure order, and it was on a losing cause?”
The city filed a motion this week to have the judge reconsider the order, Sievers said. The city is also challenging the order in the state Court of Appeals. The city filed a cross-appeal to the SMA’s appeal to that court this week.
In the cross-appeal the city argues for the state Court of Appeals to “dismiss the case for lack of subject matter,” Sievers said. He believes the city has a strong case since King County Superior Court ultimately dismissed the SMA’s case.º
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
