Jack Woodrow Lindell v. Richard Eugene Bocook
32106-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Jack Lindell, chief of security for River Park Square, petitioned the district court for a civil anti-harassment protection order against Richard Bocook based on repeated personal harassment at Lindell’s workplaces and online.
- Some of Bocook’s alleged conduct included statements made to the city council during public meetings, which Lindell alleged contributed to harassment but were not the primary basis for the petition.
- The district court granted the protection order; Bocook appealed to superior court.
- In superior court Lindell sought statutory attorney fees and costs; Bocook argued the anti-SLAPP statute (RCW 4.24.510) applied and that Lindell’s fee request converted the dispute into a damages action subject to that statute.
- The superior court affirmed the protection order, rejected Bocook’s anti-SLAPP defense, and awarded Lindell $51,327.26 in fees and costs; the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lindell) | Defendant's Argument (Bocook) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-SLAPP immunity (RCW 4.24.510) applies | Lindell: petition sought injunctive relief for harassment, not damages; anti-SLAPP inapplicable | Bocook: Lindell’s petition relied on Bocook’s statements to city council and later sought fees, transforming the case into a damages claim covered by anti-SLAPP immunity | Court: Anti-SLAPP did not apply because the principal thrust was injunctive protection for harassment, not litigation based on communications to government agencies |
| Whether Lindell was the substantially prevailing party for fee award | Lindell: prevailed on permanent protection order and is entitled to statutory fees and costs | Bocook: successfully narrowed the temporary order’s scope and thus disputes Lindell’s prevailing-party status | Court: Lindell remained the substantially prevailing party; temporary inadvertent geographic restrictions did not defeat prevailing-party status |
Key Cases Cited
- Emmerson v. Weilep, 126 Wn. App. 930, 110 P.3d 214 (2005) (standard for when anti-SLAPP applies and that statute applies only to damages actions)
- Davis v. Cox, 183 Wn.2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015) (treatment and limits of anti-SLAPP provisions)
- Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wn. App. 748, 82 P.3d 707 (2004) (anti-SLAPP protects communications to government on matters of public concern)
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters, LLC, 179 Wn. App. 41, 316 P.3d 1119 (2014) (focus on the principal thrust of the cause of action to characterize the claim)
- City of Seattle v. Egan, 179 Wn. App. 333, 317 P.3d 568 (2014) (protected activity triggering a claim does not necessarily mean the claim arose from that activity)