Segaline v. State, L&I

• Decision Date: 29 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 35823-9-II.,35823-9-II.
• Citation: 182 P.3d 480,144 Wn. App. 312
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: Michael SEGALINE, a single person, Appellant, v. The STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Washington, Alan Croft, Jane Doe Croft and the marital community thereof, Respondents.

182 P.3d 480

144 Wn. App. 312

Michael SEGALINE, a single person, Appellant, v. The STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Washington, Alan Croft, Jane Doe Croft and the marital community thereof, Respondents.

No. 35823-9-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

April 29, 2008.

Jean Marie Schiedler-Brown, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Kenneth Douglas Orcutt, Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondents.

QUINN-BRINTNALL, J.

¶ 1 Michael Segaline appeals the summary judgment dismissal and award of statutory attorney fees to the Department of Labor and Industries (L & I). Segaline owns Horizon Electric, Inc., located in East Wenatchee. To conduct his business, Segaline obtained electrical permits from L & I on several occasions. After several incidents, L & I employees began to fear that Segaline would physically assault them, and L & I served him with a "no trespass" notice. After receiving the notice, Segaline went to L & I offices and L & I employees called 911. The East Wenatchee police arrested Segaline. The City of Wenatchee initially charged Segaline with criminal trespass, but it later voluntarily dismissed the charges. Thereafter, Segaline sued L & I for (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) malicious prosecution, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) violation of his civil rights. On various grounds, the trial court summarily dismissed all of Segaline's claims and awarded L & I statutory damages under RCW 4.24.510.

¶ 2 Segaline appeals, arguing: (1) L & I is not immune from civil liability under RCW 4.24.510, (2) summary judgment was improperly granted on various grounds, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow Segaline's amended claim to relate back to the original pleading date. We affirm.

FACTS

Background

¶ 3 Segaline owns Horizon Electric in East Wenatchee. Horizon Electric is an electrical contractor that often obtains electrical permits from L & I. Segaline frequently obtained such permits for his corporation, and, on many occasions, he verbally threatened L & I employees. By the fall of 2002, many L & I employees were concerned that Segaline would physically assault them.

¶ 4 On June 9, 2003, Segaline called L & I customer service specialist Alice Lou Hawkins. He eventually demanded that she transfer the phone call to her supervisor, Jeanne Guthrie. Segaline complained to Guthrie about one of his L & I accounts and then threatened to come to the L & I offices with an audio tape recorder. According to Guthrie, Segaline claimed that "he would start legal proceedings"; "a lot of people would be behind bars"; and "if it costs you your job, so be it." 1 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 45. Segaline also made what Guthrie believed were veiled death threats.

¶ 5 On June 10, 2003, David Whittle, an L & I supervisor, called Segaline to try to resolve the conflict. They agreed to meet at the L & I offices on June 19, 2003. On previous occasions, Segaline had insisted on audio tape recording his conversations with L & I employees. Whittle informed Segaline that he could bring an audio tape recorder to this meeting, but he was not sure whether Segaline would consent to recording their meeting.

¶ 6 Later that same day, Segaline arrived at the L & I offices and complained to Guthrie about Whittle. According to Guthrie, he demanded that she either produce a copy of the statute prohibiting him from audio tape recording his conversations with L & I employees or produce a copy of Whittle's résumé to "join the private sector." 1 CP at 45.

¶ 7 On June 13, 2003, Segaline again went to the L & I offices, where Jacqueline Sanchez helped him. Segaline argued and yelled, so Sanchez asked Guthrie for help. According to Guthrie, Segaline then threatened her and stated, "You had better get an attorney." 1 CP at 45.

¶ 8 On June 19, 2003, Whittle and Alan Croft, a L & I coordinator, met with Segaline at the L & I offices. All three participants agreed to audio tape record the meeting. But Whittle withdrew his permission to recording after the meeting yielded no progress toward resolving Segaline's complaints. Segaline then walked out of the meeting and demanded to speak to Guthrie.

¶ 9 Croft followed Segaline and asked him twice to leave the L & I offices. Segaline ignored him. Croft then called 911 and twice more asked Segaline to leave the L & I offices. Again, Segaline ignored him. Segaline finally left the L & I offices just as the East Wenatchee police arrived. Police talked with Segaline, then Croft.

¶ 10 According to Croft, the police suggested that L & I serve Segaline with a "no trespass" notice that police could enforce if Segaline returned to the offices. The police did not have a "no trespass" notice form but suggested Croft obtain one from the Wenatchee Valley Mall. Croft did so.

¶ 11 Croft then contacted Washington State Patrol Trooper Scott Jarmon, who was assigned to workplace violence issues at L & I. Croft explained the problems L & I was having with Segaline. According to Croft, Jarmon said that L & I could serve individuals with a "no trespass" notice to prohibit them from entering a public building and that he, Jarmon, had enforced such notices.

¶ 12 Croft drafted a "no trespass" notice and emailed it to Guthrie. The notice stated that Segaline was "no longer permitted, invited, licensed or otherwise privileged to enter or remain at the [East Wenatchee L & I service location]." 1 CP at 39. It also provided:

To have this notice terminated, the subject must secure the written approval of David Whittle, Electrical Supervisor, prior to re-entry of the East Wenatchee Department of Labor and Industries service location. This trespass notice remains in effect until this approval is obtained.

1 CP at 39.

¶ 13 On June 30, 2003, Segaline arrived at the L & I offices. Hawkins told Segaline that he "was not to be in the office," and handed him a copy of the "no trespass" notice. 1 CP at 37. After Segaline pushed the "no trespass" notice aside, somebody called 911. The East Wenatchee police found Segaline outside the L & I offices and again served him with the "no trespass" notice. According to Hawkins, Segaline refused to acknowledge the notice.

¶ 14 On August 21, 2003, Segaline went to the L & I offices again to obtain an electrical permit. Guthrie met Segaline because she knew he had been served with the "no trespass" notice. Jim Dixon, an L & I inspector, had approved Segaline's emergency request for an electrical permit and had told him to obtain an electrical permit. But according to Guthrie, Dixon did not tell Segaline to obtain the permit personally. Nevertheless, Dixon gave Segaline the electrical permit and Segaline left.

¶ 15 Segaline arrived at the L & I offices again the next day. This time, Guthrie called 911 and Larry Hively, an L & I investigator, told Segaline about the 911 call. The East Wenatchee police found Segaline in the L & I offices. Police learned from an L & I supervisor that the "no trespass" notice was still in effect and then told Segaline to leave. Segaline refused and instead argued with the police. According to Officer Daniel Dieringer, Segaline said that he could enter the L & I offices any time he wanted.

¶ 16 According to the police, Segaline admitted that he received the "no trespass" notice, but he claimed that it was not valid because it was not signed by a judge. The police concluded that "there was nothing more [required] to keep Segaline away from the L & I office staff," then arrested him for trespassing. 1 CP at 56.

¶ 17 The City of Wenatchee charged Segaline with criminal trespass, but later the City voluntarily dismissed the charges.¹

Lawsuit

¶ 18 On August 8, 2005, Segaline filed a complaint against L & I for (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) malicious prosecution, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) violation of his civil rights. The trial court granted L & I's summary judgment motion and summarily dismissed all but the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

¶ 19 About a year after the lawsuit commenced, Segaline filed a motion under CR 15 to amend his complaint to name Croft as a defendant and to allow the amendment to relate back to the original filing date of August 5, 2005. The trial court determined that the amendment would not relate back but that the amendment was filed on August 3, 2006. After denying Segaline's motion for reconsideration, the trial court then dismissed his claim against Croft because the statute of limitations had expired.² Segaline timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Summary Judgment Standard of Review

¶ 20 On an appeal from summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash.2d 853, 860, 93 P.3d 108 (2004) (citing Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash.2d 715, 722, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993)). Our standard of review is de novo. Hisle, 151 Wash.2d at 860, 93 P.3d 108. Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 56(c). We construe all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 154 Wash.2d 16, 26, 109 P.3d 805 (2005) (citing Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass'n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wash.2d 506, 516, 799 P.2d 250 (1990)).

¶ 21 On summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Atherton, 115 Wash.2d at 516, 799 P.2d 250. "If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must present evidence that demonstrates that material facts...