Michael Leon v. The Boeing Company, 73797-0

Background

In 2013 online statements by Boeing and Securaplane challenged Michael Leon’s concerns about Boeing 787 lithium-ion batteries and his veracity; Leon repeatedly sued various defendants alleging defamation and related torts.
Multiple federal suits were dismissed as duplicative or meritless; an Arizona federal court dismissed claims, denied amendment to add Boeing spokesperson Marc Birtel, and enjoined Leon as a vexatious litigant from filing further suits based on the same facts.
Despite the injunction, Leon filed a King County action against The Boeing Company and Marc Birtel alleging defamation and tortious interference with a business expectancy, relying on the same 2013 publications.
Boeing and Birtel moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata (claim preclusion) and that the earlier federal court injunction barred the suit; Leon sought a continuance for discovery but did not specify needed facts.
The superior court denied the continuance, granted summary judgment on res judicata and on the alternative ground that the federal injunction barred the suit, and Leon appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was denial of continuance under CR 56(f) an abuse of discretion?	Leon said discovery was needed to respond to summary judgment.	Defendants said case presented legal issues (res judicata/injunction) so discovery unnecessary; Leon didn’t identify needed evidence.	No abuse: court properly denied continuance because issues were legal and Leon failed to show what discovery would produce.
Does res judicata bar Leon’s claims?	Leon argued tortious interference was a new claim based on recently discovered facts and therefore not precluded.	Defendants argued the new claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and prior judgments were final, so claim preclusion applies.	Yes: res judicata applies—same subject matter, cause of action (same transactional nucleus and evidence), parties/privity, and final judgments.
Are Boeing and Birtel identical parties or in privity with prior defendants?	Leon claimed prior suits named “Boeing Corporation” not “The Boeing Company,” and Birtel was not a named defendant in some prior cases.	Defendants showed Boeing defended prior suits; federal court found amendment to add Birtel would be futile; employer/employee privity binds Birtel.	Held that identity/privity exists: Boeing was sued previously and Birtel is bound by privity and the prior court’s futility finding.
Does the Arizona federal injunction bar the state-court action?	Leon contended the injunction was overly broad and not binding on state court.	Defendants asserted the injunction expressly covered suits arising from the 2013 statements and is binding; Leon’s challenge to the injunction belongs on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.	The injunction bars the action; Leon cited no authority to collaterally attack the federal injunction in state court, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014) (summary judgment standard).
Loveridge v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 759 (1995) (elements of res judicata).
Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853 (2004) (requirements for a final judgment on the merits).
DeYoung v. Cenex Ltd., 100 Wn. App. 885 (2000) (dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) or summary judgment constitutes a final judgment for res judicata).
Kuhlman v. Thomas, 78 Wn. App. 115 (1995) (privity and identity of parties for claim preclusion).