Harmony Nason, App. v. Hoban And Associates, Inc., Res.
74011-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Harmony House East Association (HHEA) owns a three-bedroom HUD-subsidized group home; tenants have chronic mental illness and share common areas.
- Harmony House contracted with Coast Real Estate Services (Coast) for enhanced property management and HUD-mandated inspections; tenants were to receive advance notice of entry.
- Harmony Nason, a tenant since 2007, repeatedly complained about insufficient notice for maintenance/entry and filed a Washington Human Rights Commission complaint in 2012; the Commission found no failure to reasonably accommodate and noted an alternative accommodation (written notice two Thursdays/month).
- In 2013 Nason sued HHEA, Coast, and Compass Health alleging failures to provide supportive services and reasonable accommodations under state and federal law; Compass Health was later dismissed on summary judgment.
- After deposition testimony and discovery disputes, HHEA and Coast moved for summary judgment in July 2015; Nason did not file an opposing brief or admissible evidence and orally requested a continuance at the hearing, which the trial court denied; the court granted defendants’ summary judgment and dismissed all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants met initial CR 56 burden | Nason argued factual disputes exist about notice and supportive services (largely by assertion) | Defendants produced declarations, Commission findings, and other documents showing no evidence supporting Nason's claims | Court: Defendants met initial burden by showing absence of evidence for plaintiff's claims |
| Whether Nason produced admissible evidence to create a genuine issue | Nason contended outstanding discovery prevented her from opposing and relied on complaint allegations and later unsworn materials | Defendants argued Nason failed to submit admissible evidence or timely oppose summary judgment | Court: Nason failed to present admissible evidence or point to materials before trial court, so she could not oppose summary judgment |
| Whether the trial court must consider evidence in the complaint or unsworn filings | Nason argued complaint allegations and a later declaration showed disputed facts | Defendants argued pleadings and unpresented materials cannot defeat summary judgment absent admissible evidence before the court | Court: Plaintiff may not rely on pleadings or unsworn/untimely evidence; only materials before the court were considered |
| Whether Nason was entitled to a continuance under CR 56(f) for additional discovery | Nason orally requested a continuance alleging discovery responses were missing but provided no affidavit or proper notice | Defendants argued no proper CR 56(f) showing was made and discovery issues were not shown to justify delay | Court: Denied continuance—Nason did not meet CR 56(f) requirements; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434 (court reviews summary judgment under same standard as trial court)
- Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wn.2d 17 (summary judgment evidence viewed most favorably to nonmoving party)
- White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1 (CR 56 standards on summary judgment)
- Young v. Key Pharms., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (moving party may show absence of evidence to satisfy initial burden)
- Kendall v. Douglas, Grant, Lincoln & Okanogan Counties Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 6, 118 Wn.2d 1 (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm't Co., 106 Wn.2d 1 (nonmovant cannot rely on speculation or conclusory assertions)
- Pearson v. Gray, 90 Wn. App. 911 (when nonmoving party fails to respond, appellate review limited to moving party's submitted documents)
- Las v. Yellow Front Stores, Inc., 66 Wn. App. 196 (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge, not conclusory or speculative)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (complete failure of proof on an essential element warrants summary judgment)