1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
claims are not legally viable: the constitutional provisions on which they rely simply do not guarantee the statewide court funding that Plaintiffs seek. Because Plaintiffs’ claims are not cognizable under any set of facts consistent with their complaint, the lawsuit should be dismissed pursuant to CR 12(b)(6). See Trujillo, 183 Wn.2d at 830; Alim v. City of Seattle, 14 Wn. App. 2d 838, 849-50, 474 P.3d 589 (2020) (addressing lack of standing under CR 12(b)(6)). And because further amendment could not cure those legal defects, dismissal should be with prejudice. Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp., 144 Wn. App. 709, 730, 189 P.3d 168 (2008). I.
Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Seek Statewide Funding for the Judiciary “The claims of a plaintiff who lacks standing cannot be resolved on the
merits and must fail.” Trinity Universal Ins. v. Ohio Cas. Ins., 176 Wn. App. 185, 199, 312 P.3d 976 (2013). Plaintiffs lack standing absent (1) “a personal injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief” or (2) an interest within the “zone of interests protected by the . . . constitutional provision at issue.” State v. Johnson, 179 Wn.2d 534, 552, 315 P.3d 1090 (2014). Fundamentally, the doctrine of standing “prohibit[s] a plaintiff from asserting another’s legal rights.” Trinity Universal Ins., 176 Wn. App. at 199. Here, Plaintiffs lack standing to remedy allegedly “inadequate court funding by the Legislature.” FAC ¶¶ 7.3, 8.3; see also, e.g., id. ¶¶ 6.3, 9.1-9.2, 10.1-10.4. Under Washington Supreme Court precedent, only the judiciary itself can seek such funding through litigation—and only under extraordinary
MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 21-2-06462-7 SEA 153411396
11
Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000
