Arthur West v. Seattle Port Commission
380 P.3d 82
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- Between May and September 2014, commissioners for the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle held a series of confidential meetings about port business; West learned of them in September and was denied attendance.
- West sued the Ports and individual commissioners under Washington's Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), seeking declaratory relief and sanctions.
- The Ports moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6): Port of Tacoma argued West lacked standing under the OPMA; Port of Seattle argued the Federal Shipping Act preempted the OPMA.
- The trial court granted both motions and dismissed West’s claims with prejudice. West appealed.
- The Court of Appeals considered standing under the OPMA and whether the Shipping Act preempted enforcement of the OPMA for these meetings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under OPMA | West: OPMA's text grants "any person" the right to commence actions; he was denied access so has standing | Ports: West lacks Article III–style injury; standing should be limited | Held: West has standing under the OPMA; the statute's "any person" language is permissive under Washington law |
| Federal preemption by the Shipping Act | West: Shipping Act's FOIA exemption of filings doesn't require closing meetings; OPMA can apply | Ports: Shipping Act and FMC rules protect collaborative port meetings and exempt related records, so OPMA application is preempted or conflicts | Held: Conflict preemption applies — enforcing OPMA here would frustrate core Shipping Act objectives; dismissal affirmed |
| Impossibility preemption (cannot comply with both laws) | West: Ports could hold open meetings and submit confidential minutes to FMC | Ports: Open meetings would conflict with nondisclosure aims | Held: No impossibility preemption — compliance with both laws is possible — but conflict preemption prevails |
| Continuance request denial | West: Needed more discovery under CR 56(f) | Ports: Legal issues are pure questions of law; no discovery would create material fact disputes | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying continuance; case presented pure legal questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837 (framework for evaluating CR 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (standard for de novo review of CR 12(b)(6))
- Lopp v. Peninsula School Dist. No. 401, 90 Wn.2d 754 (OPMA allows anyone standing to challenge governing body action)
- Kirk v. Pierce County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 21, 95 Wn.2d 769 (standing to raise improper-notice claim belongs to aggrieved official)
- Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 176 Wn. App. 185 (discussion of Washington standing principles)
- Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pac. v. Dep't of Transp., 119 Wn.2d 697 (preemption principles and conflict preemption analysis)