Kenneth Swanigan, V Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge Fam
48631-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Kenneth Swanigan and Charlie Walker, life members of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge (a private Masonic organization), were disciplined (reprimand, trial scheduling, possible suspension) after attending another Mason’s internal proceeding.
- Swanigan and Walker sued the Grand Lodge and Grand Master Gregory Wraggs alleging unlawful harassment under RCW 10.14.020 and violations of substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection; complaint largely recited internal Grand Lodge rules.
- They sought injunctive relief (motions for preliminary injunction and TRO) to allow Swanigan to attend Masonic affairs; motions’ disposition is unclear in the record.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6)/CR 8(a) for failure to state a claim; trial court granted dismissal and denied reconsideration. Swanigan and Walker appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the complaint pleaded facts sufficient to state statutory harassment or constitutional claims and whether procedural objections had merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory harassment (RCW 10.14.020) | Grand Lodge's reprimand/suspension and related conduct amounted to unlawful harassment | Complaint fails to allege a knowing, willful course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress and seeking a protection order | Dismissed — allegations insufficient to plead unlawful harassment and plaintiffs did not request the statute’s mandatory protection order remedy |
| Constitutional claims (Due Process / Equal Protection) | Grand Lodge’s failure to follow its own rules deprived them of constitutional rights | Grand Lodge is a private organization; complaint pleads no state action or state agency relationship | Dismissed — no state action alleged, so Fourteenth Amendment claims fail |
| Sufficiency of pleading under CR 8(a)/CR 12(b)(6) | Complaint (and appended grievance) gave adequate notice of claims and relief sought | Complaint is conclusory and largely cites internal rules without factual allegations to state a legal claim | Dismissed — complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal proper as no conceivable facts pleaded would support relief |
| Miscellaneous procedural arguments (discovery, TRO, judge reassignment, failure to answer) | Trial court erred by not compelling discovery, considering motions/TRO, or notifying judge reassignment; defendant failed to answer | CR 12(b) motion is proper pre-answer; discovery and declarations immaterial on 12(b)(6); no due process violation shown by reassignment | Rejected — procedural complaints do not undermine dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) and plaintiffs did not pursue requisite discovery motions or show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 182 Wn. App. 935 (2014) (complaint failing CR 8(a) may be dismissed under CR 12(b)(6))
- J.S. v. Vill. Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 184 Wn.2d 95 (2015) (standards for de novo review of CR 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954 (2014) (court may consider hypothetical facts supporting a complaint at pleading stage)
- Worthington v. WestNET, 182 Wn.2d 500 (2015) (dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) appropriate only if no set of facts could justify recovery)
- State v. Whittaker, 192 Wn. App. 395 (2016) (elements of RCW 10.14 unlawful harassment require distress to a reasonable person and actual distress)
- In re Estate of Hayes, 185 Wn. App. 567 (2015) (Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action)
- In re Estate of Wright, 147 Wn. App. 674 (2008) (complaint failing to demonstrate state action must be dismissed)
- Rodriguez v. Loudeye Corp., 144 Wn. App. 709 (2008) (evidence and discovery are immaterial to a CR 12(b)(6) motion)