Wok wow
ao
10
uw
12
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE. NOTICE TO PARTIES
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION REGARDING COURT'S
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF AVAILABILITY DURING
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; JUDGE’S SCHEDULED LEAVE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS,
Plaintiffs,
and
WASHINGTON ADAPT,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant,
and
CLINT DIDIER; PERMANENT OFFENSE,
TIMOTHY D. EYMAN, MICHAEL FAGAN;
JACK FAGAN; and PIERCE COUNTY,
Intervenor-Defendants.
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING {JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
JONG COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
COURT'S AVAILABILITY DURING ea
JUDGE’S SCHEDULED LEAVE - 1 ‘SEATTLE WA 98108
co LDV tas)
Diebk ww
aa
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
au
22
23
24
25
‘This Notice is to apprise the parties, including the recently added intervenors, that Judge
Marshall Ferguson’s personal leave is scheduled to commence on Monday, December 16, 2019,
continuing through January 1, 2020, with the Judge returning to work on Thursday, January 2,
2020. The leave dates were scheduled long before the above-captioned matter was assigned to
Judge Ferguson.
Given the utmost urgency of this case to the public and the parties, however, Judge
Ferguson agrees to make himself available on his scheduled leave dates, in person and in open
court if necessary, to hear time-sensitive motions or other significant matters on a case-by-case
basis. The following limitations and conditions will apply:
1, Judge Ferguson will not be available on Court holidays (December 25, 2019;
January 1, 2020) or on days when the Court closes due to unforeseen
circumstances (e.g., inclement weather).
2. Judge Ferguson will not be available in person on December 16-20, 2019.
3. If Judge Ferguson opens his courtroom for this case on a scheduled leave day,
then Judge Ferguson’s courtroom shall be open to all business of the Court, not
just this case.
Pursuant to court rules, the Court maintains its discretion to deny oral argument on
nondispositive motions, to issue rulings on motions after the scheduled hearing date, and to
otherwise manage the litigation as justice demands,
DATED this 13th day of December, 2019.
JUDGE MARSHALE- FERGUSON
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING {UGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
ING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
COURT’S AVAILABILITY DURING ‘6 THAD AVENUE
JUDGE'S SCHEDULED LEAVE - 2 searag wasnAu ek ww
Sce a
ul
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson
Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019
Without Oral Argument
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE ORDER GRANTING
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION, INTERVENOR STATUS TO CLINT
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF DIDIER AND DENYING IN PART
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; MOTION TO INTERVENE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS,
Plaintiffs,
and
WASHINGTON ADAPT,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Third Party Motion To Intervene
intervenors Clint Didier; Kevin Heinen,
(“Motion To Intervene” herein) brought by propose
Matthew Morell, John Logue, and Parker Olsen. The Court considered the Motion To Intervene,
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR UBS MARSMALL FERGUSON
STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND Resins awene
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEATIE WA96I08
INTERVENE - 1 Cc OPY (205) a77a503the supporting declarations of Stephen Pidgeon and ‘Tim Eyman! (Sub. Nos. 84, 85) and the
ing under oath or penalty
jervenors stating, but not atte
“verifications” signed by the propose
of perjury, that the facts set forth in a previously filed motion to intervene are true (Sub. No. 41),
No existing party has filed either a stipulation or an opposition to the motion. The
proposed intervenors have not provided a proposed pleading setting forth their claims or
defenses, as required by CR 24(c). Based upon the Court’s review of the motion, the supporting
hereby
s, and the Court file, it i
materia
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is GRANTED
IN PART, in that proposed intervenor Clint Didier is granted intervenor status in the above-
captioned matter. It is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is DENIED IN
PART, in that proposed intervenors Kevin Heinen, Matthew Morell, John Logue, and Parker
Olsen are denied intervenor status in the above-captioned matter.
The Motion To Intervene fails to provide any factual basis for distinguishing between
cach of the five individuals seeking to intervene. All are identically self-described as “a
taxpayer, a vehicle owner, and a registered voter who voted in support of 1-976.” Sub. No. 41.
Nowhere do the proposed intervenors explain why five identically described individual
taxpayers should all be granted intervenor status in this case rather than just one, especially where
all five would be represented by the same attorney asserting the same arguments on their behalf.
Since the interests of Messrs. Heinen, Morell, Logue, and Olsen will be adequately represented
by intervenor Mr. Didier, intervention of right as to the four others is denied. CR 24(a)(2).
* The Court intends no disrespect to Mr. Eyman by informally referring to him as “Tim Eyman” here. The subject
declaration is entitled “Declaration of Tim Eyman.” Other documents filed with the Court refer to Mr. Eyman as
“Timothy Eyman” or “Timothy Donald Eyman”,
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR | UBSE MARSHALL FERGUSON
STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND STD aae
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEATTIE WA E104
INTERVENE - 2 (209) 77.513Sow aa
u
2
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Court exercises its discretion in denying permissive intervention to Messrs. Heinen,
Morell, Logue, and Olsen. The Motion To Intervene offers no explanation as to each proposed
intervenor’s distinctive basis for intervention and no limiting principle on the notion that each
and every individual taxpaying vehicle owner who voted for I-976 should be granted intervenor
status in this lawsuit. Absent such information, the Court grants intervenor status to Mr. Didier
alone, without prejudice to the other proposed intervenors bringing a supplemental motion to
intervene establishing individualized grounds for their intervention? Or, if another of the
proposed intervenors should be substituted for Mr. Didier, the Court would consider such a
request.
The case caption shall be amended to add Mr. Didier as an intervenor-defendant.
ML
JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
DATED this 13th day of December, 2019.
? This Order extends the existing, stipulated December 9, 2019 deadline for filing motions to intervene to December
23, 2019 solely to accommodate the four potential intervenors other than Mr. Didier, and not for any other purpose.
JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR OE MAASHALL FERGUSON
STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND. aa
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO Sear wnasin
INTERVENE - 3n
2
13,
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
a
2
23
24
‘THE HONORABLE MARSHALL FERGUSON
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF | NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA.
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE
‘TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF PREPSSER
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT;
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION ORDER GRANTING PIERCE COUNTY'S
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE
WASHINGTON, and MICHAEL ROGERS, __ | AND FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
This matter came on regularly for hearing before the undersigned Judge on the 13th day
of December, 2019, on a motion by Pierce County, for an Order allowing Pierce County to
intervene and for relief from the deadline set for intervention. ‘The Court has considered Pierce
County’s Motion to Intervene and for Relief From Scheduling Order, and the records herein, and
being fully advised, it is hereby
MW
Pierce Coury Prosecuting Attorney Divison
955 Tacoma Aveaue Sou, Suit 301
Tacoma, Washington 96402-2160
VW Main" (53) DHEGTI?/ Pr (253) 986713
L
Seopmeed Order Grating Motion to intervene (bench copy)
. COP’
Me10
ul
2
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
2
23
24
Mt
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Pierce County’s Unopposed Motion
to Intervene and for Relief From Scheduling Order is GRANTED.
DATED.
this 13 day of December, 2019.
ML wee
MARSHALL FERGUSON,
Judge
Presented by:
MARY ROBNETT
Prosecuting Attorney
s/ DANIEL R. HAMILTON
DANIEL R. HAMILTON, WSBA # 14658
s/ FRANK A. CORNELIUS
FRANK A. CORNELIUS, WSBA #29590
Pierce County Prosecutor / Civil
955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301
Tacoma, WA 98402-2160
Ph: 253-798-6732 / Fax: 253-798-6713
Evmail: dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.eov
2 Piero County Prosecuting Ateney/Civi Division
Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene (beac copy) 955 Tacoma Avene Sut, Sut 301
cate No “Tacoma, Washington 98402-2160
Main’ 053) 986732 Fac 53) 798-6713,The Honorable Marshall Ferguson
Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019
Without Oral Argument
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE ORDER GRANTING
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION INTERVENOR STATUS TO
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF PERMANENT OFFENSE,
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; TIMOTHY EYMAN, MICHAE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION FAGAN, AND JACK FAGAN,
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS,
Plaintiffs,
and
WASHINGTON ADAPT,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion For Intervention brought by
proposed intervenors Permanent Offense, Timothy Donald Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Michael
Fagan. The Court considered the Motion For Intervention, the supporting declarations of
Timothy Donald Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack Fagan with the exhibits thereto, and the Court
file.
JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR, 86501
STATUS TO PERMANENT. se COUNTY suPEnIO
OFFENSE, TIMOTHY EYMAN, SEATTLE WA 98108
MICHAEL FAGAN, AND JACK, (209) 4771513,
FAGAN - 1 COPYwa ween
10
u
B
4
15
16
7
19
20
2
22
23
24
25
No existing party has filed either a stipulation or an opposition to the motion. The
proposed intervenors have not provided a proposed pleading setting forth their claims or
defenses, as required by CR.24(c). Based upon the Court’s review of the motion, the supporting
materials, and the Court file, itis hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is GRANTED.
Permanent Offense, Timothy Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack Fagan are granted intervenor
status in the above-captioned matter. The case caption shall be amended to add them as
intervenor-defendants.
DATED this 13th day of December, 2019.
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR upsemaasa EON
STATUS TO PERMANENT S16 THIRD AVENUE
OFFENSE, TIMOTHY EYMAN, SEATTLE WAS&I08
(200) 4771503
MICHAEL FAGAN, AND JACK
FAGAN -2wk ww
Sc wre
ul
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson
Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019
Without Oral Argument
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA
AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION: ASSOCIATION APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL
OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF
SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT;
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF
WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS,
Plaintiffs,
and
WASHINGTON ADAPT,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER, before the Court upon the Motion To Appoint Outside Counsel
(“Motion To Appoint”) brought by proposed intervenors! Permanent Offense, Timothy Eyman,
Jack Fagan, and Michael Fagan (“Proposed Intervenors”), and the Court, having considered the
Motion To Appoint, the supporting declarations of Timothy D. Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack
* See below the Court’s admonition regarding adherence to court rules.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL - 1 Se TIADAVERIE
Ce oO py (ao) 4773519bk ww
Soe ana
MW
12
1B
14
15
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fagan with the exhibits thereto, defendant State of Washington's Opposition To Intervenors’
Motion To Appoint Outside Counsel, the supporting Declaration of Karl D. Smith with the
exhibits thereto, the Proposed Intervenors’ Reply to the Opposition with the exhibits thereto, and
the Court file; and the Court, being fully apprised as to the arguments and authorities therefor, it
is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Proposed Intervenors’ Motion To
Appoint Outside Counsel is DENIED.
‘The Court does not herein address all of the parties’ motion arguments. ‘The Court notes,
however, that at several points in their motion materials, Mr. Eyman, the Fagans, and Permanent
Offense appear to argue that discovery is needed in this case. See, e.g., Reply, pp. 4-5 (Sub. No.
109). Nothing in this Order precludes any party from requesting relief from the Court's
December 5, 2019 Scheduling Order On Dispositive Motions on the basis that discovery should
occur (or on any other valid basis). Ata minimum, however, a party seeking discovery would
need to make a showing that there exists a material fact in dispute for which discovery is
necessary, especially in light of the strong likelihood that permitting discovery would prolong
considerably the pendency of this lawsuit in the King County Superior Court. If there exist
disputed issues of fact for a trial, that trial would not occur until the current trial date of
November 9, 2020. In light of the urgency of this lawsuit, any party seeking relief from the
Scheduling Order On Dispositive Motions on the basis that discovery needs to occur concerning
a triable issue should do so without undue delay.
On a procedural note, the Court observes that Proposed Intervenors filed their Motion To
Appoint on December 4, 2019, nine days before the Court entered today’s separate order
granting them intervenor status. The Proposed Intervenors noted the Motion To Appoint to be
pore cited sve coUNTY Sure WOR COUNT
APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL -2 coun seo
(200) 477.513,ul
12
13
4
1s
16
7
18
19
20
a1
2
2B
24
25
jout oral argument on December 13, 2019, the same hearing date as their intervention
heard
motion. Sub. Nos. 73,75. This was improper.
Prospective intervenors are not parties and do not possess standing to seck any relief
other than leave to intervene. See River Park Square, LLC v. Miggins, 143 Wn.2d 68, 17 P.3d
1178 (2001) (motion for change of judge properly denied because prospective intervenor did not
have standing as a party to make motion). Court rules do not permit prospective intervenors to
bring motions to be heard on the same date as their motions for intervention under the assumption
that the court will grant intervention? To do so would be unfair to existing parties who, not
knowing whether the court will grant or deny intervention, must guess as to whether to file
materials in opposition to a non-party’s motion,
Here, defendant State of Washington filed an opposition to the Motion To Appoint and
did not object based upon the Proposed Intervenors’ lack of standing. Intervenor-plaintiff
Washington ADAPT, which was granted intervenor status on December 10, 2019, was deprived
of notice and an opportunity to be heard as to the Motion To Appoint. Nonetheless, in the interest
of judicial economy and the efficient administration of this case, the Court exercised its
discretion and considered the Motion To Appoint instead of striking the motion without ruling
on its merits based upon lack of standing or lack of due process for Washington ADAPT. The
Court will not permit parties or proposed intervenors to run roughshod over court rules and
procedural requirements, however. The Court maintains its authority to deny relief to future
? Im the Motion To Appoint, the Proposed Intervenors cite only “CR 24” without citing any subsection of the rule
‘or explaining how CR 24 allows non-party prospective intervenors to bring motions other than ¢ motion to intervene.
To the extent that the proposed intervenors contend thatthe Motion To Appoint constitutes the “pleading” required
bby CR 24(0), the Court rejects such contention on the grounds that (1) the Proposed Intervenors separately filed the
Motion To Appoint, separately noted it for a hearing, and provided a separate proposed order, instead of merely
providing the Motion To Appoint with the intervention motion, as expressly contemplated by CR 24(c), and (2) the
Motion To Appoint isa request thatthe Court take action now, not just a pleading setting forth claims and defenses
for the Court’ ultimate determination in the case.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Perera gerenieeeerel
APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSE me Gye TH AVENUE
“tose10
i
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed intervenors who note substantive motions for hearing on the same date as their
intervention motion?
DATED this 13th day of December, 2019.
ML
JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
The Court would allow a proposed intervenor to bring a motion to shorten time to hear the intervention motion, as
‘motion to shorten time would not be substantive but would relate solely o the limited issue ofthe timing of hearing,
the intervention motion,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON
APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL - 4 beara
Sexe wnaeiog
(as arias