Newport Yacht Club v. City of Bellevue
2:09-cv-00589
W.D. Wash.Nov 9, 2011Background
- NYC and the Weinsteins sued the City of Bellevue over stormwater/sediment controls in Coal Creek basin and a 2004 Settlement Agreement anticipated projects including a Coal Creek Stabilization Project, a flood control berm, and a salmon habitat enhancement project (SHEP).
- The Weinsteins own adjacent property; NYC represents Newport Shores residents and holds a marina in Seattle-based jurisdiction.
- The 2004 Settlement Agreement required the City to cooperate with the Weinsteins on SHEP permits and to refrain from opposing the Weinsteins’ development so long as the SHEP complies with City Code.
- Judge Lasnik granted summary judgment in 2010–2011 denying the Weinsteins’ SHEP claim and allowing the City to recover costs and fees; Ninth Circuit reversed on the SHEP issue and remanded, leaving Art. 7 disputes unresolved.
- A recent dispute centers on Art. 7 of the Settlement Agreement (cooperation/oopposition and permit assistance) and whether the City’s actions comply with City Code and the VCA, with a stay and fee provisions in place.
- The court now denies summary judgment, denies 54(b) judgment against NYC, and maintains the stay pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Weinsteins’ project a SHEP as intended by the Settlement Agreement? | Weinstein | City | Genuine factual dispute remains regarding the SHEP characterization. |
| Does the Weinsteins’ project comply with Bellevue City Code so the City has cooperative duties under Art. 7? | Weinstein | City | Material factual questions exist; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Has the City fulfilled its cooperative obligations under Art. 7 in light of the VCA and permits process? | Weinstein | City | Factual disputes exist; no summary judgment on cooperation. |
| Is NYC a real party in interest to obtain Rule 54(b) final judgment separate from the Weinsteins? | NYC | City | NYC is a real party in interest; nevertheless Rule 54(b) final judgment denied to avoid piecemeal appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1988) (contract interpretation and mixed questions of law and fact apply to settlement agreements)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (cognizable interests in wildlife can support standing)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980) (judicial administration considerations in Rule 54(b) judgments)
- Kim v. Moffett, 156 Wn. App. 689 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (contractual obligations owed to multiple promisees; real party in interest concept)
- Salvo v. Thatcher, 128 Wn. App. 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (interpretation of contract provisions; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Forbes v. Am. Bldg. Maint. Co. W., 148 Wn. App. 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (interpretation of contractual rights and party intent)