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
Moreover, although Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class of other civil litigants, “[t]he procedural mechanism of a class action does not confer standing that a plaintiff does not otherwise have in an individual capacity.” Doe v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood Bank, 55 Wn. App. 106, 115, 780 P.2d 853 (1989). Plaintiffs’ own injuries must be caused by the challenged conduct and redressable by the requested relief. See id. Yet Plaintiffs fail to draw any connection between the various alleged budget shortfalls—for services such as interpreters, civil legal aid, and law libraries—and their trial continuances. See FAC ¶ 10.4. What’s more, Plaintiffs allege no facts demonstrating that the State will be “issuing any budget” between now and their trial dates, much less facts establishing that the funding in such a budget could impact their trial dates. FAC p. 49, ¶ 5. Nor is there any legal basis to hold the State accountable for funding decisions made by the counties, FAC ¶¶ 2.30, 2.31, which are independent governing bodies. Supra at 3-4 & n.1. Plaintiffs lack standing for these additional, independent reasons. II.
Plaintiffs’ Available Legal Remedies Preclude Their Request for Collateral Equitable Relief Plaintiffs’ suit is, in effect, a collateral attack on other trial courts’
discretionary management of their dockets. This Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to remedy alleged delays in those cases by entertaining their request for sweeping equitable relief, where Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust available legal remedies.
MOTION TO DISMISS Case No. 21-2-06462-7 SEA 153411396
20
Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Phone: 206.359.8000 Fax: 206.359.9000
