King Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Wash. State Nurses Ass'n

• Decision Date: 17 October 2022
• Docket Number: 83750-8-I
• Parties: KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #2 d/b/a EVERGREEN HEALTH, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #2 d/b/a EVERGREEN HEALTH, Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 83750-8-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

October 17, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HAZELRIGG, J.

King County Public Hospital District #2 d/b/a EvergreenHealth (the District) appeals from a dismissal under CR 12(b)(6). The District brought an action for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and unfair labor practices against the Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA). Even presuming all of the District's allegations are true it fails to demonstrate entitlement to a legal remedy. Therefore, dismissal was proper.

FACTS

EvergreenHealth, also known as King County Hospital District #2, is a public hospital in King County. As a public hospital, its nursing staff bargain

1

through WSNA to implement collective bargaining agreements which govern wages, hours of work, and conditions of employment. Section 7.7 of the 2019-2021 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) discusses meal and rest periods. In November, 2016, a nurse, formerly employed by the District, filed a putative class action alleging the District denied nurses statutorily guaranteed rest and meal breaks.^[1] The District opposed class certification, arguing that the class members failed to exhaust the applicable arbitration and grievance procedure before filing a claim.^[2] After the trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration, the District appealed.^[3] In addition to deciding the arbitration issue, this court held that Section 7.7 of the CBA did not vary from WAC 296-126-092.^[4] In 2019, the District petitioned the state Supreme Court for review, and WSNA filed an amicus brief in that appeal in early 2020. Consistent with the holding of this court, WSNA argued in its amicus brief that the language of the CBA did not deviate from regulations governing meal and rest periods. Later that year, WSNA made several oral and written communications which asserted its position that the CBA did not depart from WAC 296-126-092, and informed nurses they should report any lack of a second meal period as a missed meal period so the nurses would receive compensation.

The District filed a complaint for declaratory relief in January, 2021, in King County Superior Court. It amended its complaint in March, 2021, in response to

2

an order granting WSNA's motion for a more definite statement, and added claims for breach of contract and unfair labor practices. WSNA moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), arguing the District's claims were legally insufficient. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The District timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

I. CR 12(b)(6)

This court reviews a dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) de novo. FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954, 962, 331 P.3d 29 (2014). "The facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true, and a court may consider hypothetical facts that could support recovery." Mason v. Mason, 19 Wn.App. 2d 803, 819, 497 P.3d 431 (2021). CR 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper when there are no facts the plaintiff could prove which would entitle them to relief. Dave Robbins Constr., LLC v. First Am. Title Co., 158 Wn.App. 895, 899, 249 P.3d 625 (2010). "'This weeds out complaints where, even if what the plaintiff alleges is true, the law does not provide a remedy.'" Id. (quoting McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., 169 Wn.2d 96, 101, 233 P.3d 861 (2010)). However, dismissal at this stage "'"should be granted sparingly and with care."'" Mason, 19 Wn.App. 2d at 819 (quoting J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 184 Wn.2d 95, 100, 359 P.3d 714 (2015)).^[5]

3

As a general rule, a court may not consider "'matters outside the pleading,'" otherwise the motion is converted to one for summary judgment. Washington State Human Rights Comm'n v. Hous. Auth. of City of Seattle, 21 Wn.App. 2d 978, 983, 509 P.3d 319 (2022) (quoting CR 12(b)(7)). However, if the contents of a document "are alleged in the complaint," but not attached to the complaint, those contents may be considered without converting the 12(b)(6) motion to a summary judgment motion. Id. (quoting Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 183 Wn.2d 820, 827 n.2, 355 P.3d 1100 (2015)). Additionally, the court may properly "'take judicial notice of public documents if their authenticity cannot be reasonably disputed.'" Id. at 983 (quoting Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp., 144 Wn.App. 709, 725-26, 189 P.3d 168 (2008)). Here, both the amicus brief and CBA are referenced in the pleadings and were transmitted to this court as part of the record on appeal.

Both parties submitted materials to this court from the ongoing proceedings in the Lee^[6] case in King County Superior Court; WSNA in a "Statement of Supplemental Authority" filed just prior to oral argument, and the District in court during oral argument. These materials are outside the record of the instant appeal. We decline to consider any of those additional materials as we are limited by the posture presented by an appeal from a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See RAP 9.6(a) ("a party may supplement the designation only by order of the appellate court, upon motion"), RAP 9.11...