Debi O'brien v. Leonard Carder
74367-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 3, 2017Background
- Debi O’Brien worked as HR coordinator/operations manager for ABM Parking; her position was eliminated in Feb 2013 as part of workforce reductions.
- O’Brien sued ABM Parking and ABMI in state court (2013); that case was removed to federal court, where corporate defendants won dismissal of some claims and the district court later dismissed the action without prejudice.
- In 2015 O’Brien voluntarily dismissed the federal action and filed a new suit in King County naming several individual managers plus ABM entities; she later added and then quickly dismissed multiple individual defendants after adding the corporate defendants.
- Individual defendants moved for CR 11 sanctions, arguing the individuals were added merely to defeat federal jurisdiction (forum shopping); the superior court granted sanctions against O’Brien and her attorneys for including four individuals without factual or legal support.
- The remaining defendants (Carder, ABM Parking, ABMI) moved for summary judgment; the court struck parts of O’Brien’s declaration, denied her request for additional discovery, and granted summary judgment dismissing her claims.
- O’Brien appealed the CR 11 sanctions, denial of continuance, striking of her declaration, and the summary judgment dismissals; the Court of Appeals affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | O’Brien’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 11 sanctions were proper for suing individuals for an improper purpose | O’Brien: claims were a good-faith effort to extend law; adding a Washington resident (Carder) defeated federal jurisdiction so purpose was legitimate | Defs: individuals were added solely to defeat diversity and forum-shop; pleadings lacked factual/legal support | Affirmed: sanctions proper—court reasonably inferred claims against four individuals were baseless and added for improper forum-shopping purpose |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance of summary judgment to permit more discovery | O’Brien: needed additional discovery (including depositions) to oppose summary judgment | Defs: case had long discovery history, prior continuances in federal court, O’Brien hadn’t diligently pursued outstanding items; no specific evidence likely to create material facts | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion given litigation history and lack of specific showing of needed evidence |
| Whether portions of O’Brien’s declaration should be struck and considered on summary judgment | O’Brien: declaration supported factual disputes | Defs: declaration was conclusory, unsubstantiated, lacked foundation | Appellate court declined to consider the claim raised first in reply; trial court’s evidentiary ruling upheld on record basis |
| Whether summary judgment on discrimination/retaliation/contract claims was improper | O’Brien: raised hostile work environment, retaliation, age discrimination, failure to accommodate, breach of contract (Code of Conduct created contract) | Defs: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for elimination (revenue loss, automation); no evidence decisionmakers knew of protected activity; Code disclaimed contract; managerial acts not shown to be personally discriminatory | Affirmed: summary judgment proper for ABM entities and Carder—O’Brien failed to raise material factual disputes or evidence of pretext, knowledge by decisionmakers, or enforceable contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Engstrom v. Goodman, 166 Wn. App. 905 (App. 2012) (sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299 (Wash. 1993) (standard for reviewing discretionary orders and CR 11 purposes)
- Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193 (Wash. 1994) (CR 11 improper purpose can alone justify sanctions; CR 11 not a fee-shifting mechanism)
- MacDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wn. App. 877 (App. 1996) (definition of baseless filing under CR 11: not grounded in fact or law or lacking a good-faith argument to change law)
- Trummel v. Mitchell, 156 Wn.2d 653 (Wash. 2006) (continuance for trial matters is discretionary; abuse of discretion standard)
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138 (Wash. 2004) (elements for failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co., 143 Wn.2d 349 (Wash. 2001) (supervisor liability under WLAD requires affirmative, personal discriminatory conduct)