Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 16 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | C20-983 TSZ |
| Citation | 499 F.Supp.3d 888 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | HUNTERS CAPITAL LLC, Northwest Liquor and Wine LLC, SRJ Enterprises, The Richmark Company, Sage Physical Therapy PLLC, Kathleen Caples, Onyx Homeowners Association, Wade Biller, Madrona Real Estate Services LLC, Madrona Real Estate Investors IV LLC, Madrona Real Estate Investors VI LLC, 12th and Pike Associates LLC, Redside Partners LLC, Magdalena Sky, Olive ST Apartments LLC, Bergmans Lock and Key Services LLC, Matthew Ploszaj, Argento LLC, Rancho Bravo, Inc., Sway and Cake LLC, & Shuffle LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendant. |
Tyler Weaver, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Andrew S. DeCarlow, Angelo J. Calfo, Henry Charles Phillips, Patricia A. Eakes, Calfo Eakes LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs Hunters Capital LLC, Northwest Liquor and Wine LLC, SRJ Enterprises, The Richmark Company, Sage Physical Therapy PLLC, Kathleen Caples, Onyx Homeowners Association, Wade Biller, Madrona Real Estate Services LLC, Madrona Real Estate Investors IV LLC, Madrona Real Estate Investors VI LLC, 12th and Pike Associates LLC, Redside Partners LLC, Magdalena Sky, Olive St Apartments LLC, Bergmans Lock and Key Services LLC.
Tyler Weaver, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Andrew S. DeCarlow, Henry Charles Phillips, Calfo Eakes LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs Matthew Ploszaj, Argento LLC, Rancho Bravo, Inc., Sway and Cake LLC, Shuffle LLC.
Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., Kristin Elizabeth Ballinger, Tyler Lawrence Farmer, Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen LLP, Joseph Givon Groshong, Seattle City Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the City of Seattle's ("City") Motion to Dismiss and Deny Class Certification ("Motion"), docket no. 11, and its Motion for a Stay of Discovery, docket no. 16. Having reviewed all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the motions, the Court enters the following Order.
On June 8, 2020, with nationwide civil rights protests ongoing, the City "abruptly deserted" the Seattle Police Department's ("SPD") East Precinct, located on the corner of Twelfth Avenue and East Pine Street in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") at ¶ 3 (docket no. 9). Almost immediately after the SPD abandoned the East Precinct, protestors declared the area "Free Capitol Hill" to create a "no-cop" zone, and they used large barriers that the City left behind to block off streets within one block of the precinct. Id. at ¶¶ 36–38. As the zone expanded, it first became known as the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone," a.k.a. "CHAZ," and eventually became known as the "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" or "Capitol Hill Occupying Protest," a.k.a. "CHOP" (collectively, "CHOP"). Id. at ¶¶ 1, 38. CHOP's unofficial boundaries stretched north to East Denny Way, east to Thirteenth Avenue, south to East Pike Street, and west to Broadway Avenue, encompassing Cal Anderson Park and 16 city blocks in all. Id. at ¶ 39.
CHOP participants claimed the area as their own, which was allegedly governed by a "loose form of governance and justice" and which they secured by physically barricading and patrolling the area's borders. Id. at ¶¶ 40–41. Many CHOP participants set up tents and started living on the streets, sidewalks, and in Cal Anderson Park. Id. at ¶ 42. They allegedly occupied the streets and sidewalks 24 hours per day, hosting speeches, debates, movies, music, and even illegal fireworks shows, causing disturbances and noise pollution well past 10 p.m., and usually into the early hours of the next day. Id. at ¶ 47. Certain CHOP participants served as a "replacement police force" by demanding that business owners release individuals suspected of crimes and conducting their own crime investigations. Id. at ¶ 46. Some CHOP participants were observed carrying guns in broad daylight. Id. at ¶ 48.
According to Plaintiffs, the City "entirely handed over" the approximately 7-acre Cal Anderson Park to the CHOP participants. Id. at ¶ 49. The City also allegedly provided CHOP participants with medical equipment, washing/sanitation facilities, portable toilets, nighttime lighting, and other material support. Id. at ¶¶ 49, 179–180. The City further allowed CHOP participants to build makeshift gardens in the park "to grow food for CHOP," id. at ¶ 52, with the Mayor tweeting her support for the "new community garden popping up in Cal Anderson Park," id. at ¶ 182(g). Plaintiffs allege that members of the public could not use the park, and if they got too close, CHOP participants threatened them or their property. Id. at ¶ 51. Moreover, the "hundreds of CHOP participants in the park created excessive noise ... at all hours of the day and night." Id. at ¶ 53. "Trash, feces, and other refuse built up in the park, affecting the whole area." Id. The park was allegedly one of the most violent areas of CHOP, and local residents witnessed individuals carrying firearms in the park. Id. As a result of the City's alleged actions, the park "was transformed into a massive tent city for CHOP participants," id. at ¶ 50, as shown below:
[Photos provided at FAC at ¶ 51]
On June 11, Mayor Jenny Durkan tweeted that CHOP "is not a lawless wasteland of anarchist insurrection—it is a peaceful expression of our community's collective grief and their desire to build a better world." Id. at ¶ 182(a). That same day, during a joint press conference with SPD Chief of Police Carmen Best, the Mayor reiterated that area "is not an armed ANTIFA militia no-go zone" and that "blocks of Seattle in Capitol Hill [have] shut down every summer for everything from Block Party to Pride." Id. at ¶ 182(d). The Mayor also stated that the area "is not really that much of an operational challenge[,] [b]ut we want to make sure that the businesses and residents feel safe and we'll continue to move that forward." Id. At the time, "the City communicated clearly to CHOP participants that they may continue occupying the area ... because [the City is] trying to do things that are responsible." Id. at ¶ 181. For her part, the Police Chief stated that "SPD has a responsibility to provide public safety services to the entire East precinct and the City" and that the "actions of a small group cannot and should not deprive an entire segment of our community from public-safety services." Id. at ¶ 57. The Police Chief also stated that "[i]n the first day of the SPD not having access to the [East] precinct, response times for crimes in progress were over fifteen minutes, about three times as long as the average." Id. The Police Chief said that "[t]he difference in the amount of time could protect someone's life and prevent a violent attack." Id.
The next day, on June 12, the Mayor was asked during a CNN interview "how long the City would allow CHOP participants to continue," and the Mayor responded: Id. at ¶ 181(b). She again stated that CHOP "is more like a block party atmosphere" and that "we will make sure that we can restore this[,]" [b]ut we have block parties and the like in this part of Seattle all the time. It's known for that." Id. at ¶ 182(f).
On June 16, the City allegedly "reached an informal agreement" with CHOP participants to allow limited one-way access on certain streets within the area. Id. at ¶ 177. As part of that agreement, Plaintiffs allege that "the City actually fortified the rest of CHOP" by providing participants with sturdier concrete barriers. Id. at ¶¶ 174(d), 177. Although CHOP participants allegedly reestablished impediments on those limited-access streets, the City's response was "apparently to do nothing." Id. at ¶ 177. The City issued a press release that day stating that "City officials have been on site on Capitol Hill to work [to] meet community needs including hygiene, sanitation and safety," and that they had met with CHOP "organizers, small businesses, and residents to discuss proposed changes to the protest zone." Id. at ¶ 174(b). That day, the Mayor also suggested that the City agreed to deploy police to CHOP only for "significant life-safety issues," such as "an active shooter incident, an assault, a structure fire, significant medical emergency, and other incidents that threaten a person's life safety." Id. at ¶ 181(e).1
Plaintiffs allege that the City "adopted a policy supporting the CHOP occupation, acting with deliberate indifference toward those suffering harms from it." Id. at ¶ 174. Plaintiffs also allege that because of the City-provided barriers that CHOP participants used in the streets and sidewalks, local residents could not use public streets, sidewalks, or other rights-of-way to enter their homes or businesses, they could not receive deliveries, and their clients were unable to visit their businesses. Id. at ¶¶ 70–71, 74. Plaintiffs allege that garbage and recycling services could not enter CHOP, forcing them to pile up their refuse. Id. at ¶ 73. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that they did not have "full use" of their property that was normally freely accessible, including their garages, in order to prevent vandalism to their properties. Id. at ¶ 72. Plaintiffs also allege that CHOP participants painted graffiti on most available surfaces in the area. Id. at ¶ 43. If a property owner painted over the graffiti, CHOP participants allegedly replaced the graffiti or threatened business owners if they painted over the graffiti. Examples of the allegedly pervasive graffiti are shown below:
[Photos provided at FAC at ¶¶ 42–43]
Plaintiffs allege, "[o]n information and belief," that the City considered the area from Denny Way to Union Street and Thirteenth Avenue to Broadway Avenue to be a "no response" zone, and it adopted a policy and practice of not entering CHOP except in the case of "the most serious" or "life-threatening crimes"; and even then, SPD's response was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bledsoe v. Ferry County, Washington
... ... City of Orlando , 2012 WL 1252684 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2012) (holding ... Bender v. City of Seattle , 99 Wash.2d 582, 664 P.2d 492, 500 (1983). First, the evidence supports ... ...
-
R.R. 1900, LLC v. City of Sacramento
...Disciplinary Appeal, 650 F.3d at 203-04.Plaintiff relies heavily upon the district court's decision in Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle, 499 F. Supp. 3d 888 (W.D. Wash. 2020). The plaintiffs in that case, a group of business and property owners, brought civil rights claims against the......
-
Roberts v. NYE Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...they had and observed, their deliberate failure to do their duty led directly to a foreseeable crash resulting injuries.[8] In Hunters Capital, the court considered a motion dismiss a series of § 1983 claims filed by a class of individuals. 499 F.Supp.3d at 893. Underlying the claim were fa......
-
Sinclair v. City of Seattle
...amicus curiae, devoted portions of their briefing on the recent District Court decision in Hunters Capital v. City of Seattle, 499 F.Supp.3d 888 (W.D. Wash 2020). Hunters Capital also involved incidents related to CHOP and the District Court held that the business and property owners locate......