474 P.3d 589
Wash. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: two individual gun owners (Omar Abdul Alim, Michael Thyng) and two organizations (NRA, Second Amendment Foundation) challenged Seattle Ordinance 12560 (SMC 10.79.020-.060), which makes unsecured firearm storage a civil infraction and sets graduated fines.
- Plaintiffs asserted the ordinance is preempted by RCW 9.41.290, which they say occupies the entire field of firearms regulation in Washington.
- Seattle moved to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the complaint failed to allege a justiciable controversy (standing/ripeness).
- The superior court granted dismissal with prejudice and denied leave to amend; plaintiffs sought reconsideration and attached a proposed amended complaint alleging unlocked home storage, proximity to minors, and inability to comply without purchasing a safe.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held justiciability under the UDJA is not jurisdictional, the City’s CR 12(b)(1) was the wrong vehicle, and under the CR 12(b)(6) standard plaintiffs plausibly alleged standing and ripeness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of a justiciable controversy under the UDJA is jurisdictional | Justiciability (standing/ripeness) is not jurisdictional and does not deprive superior court of subject matter jurisdiction | UDJA’s justiciability requirement is jurisdictional; absence of a live controversy deprives the court of jurisdiction | Not jurisdictional; superior courts retain subject matter jurisdiction over UDJA claims (reversed) |
| Proper procedural vehicle to test justiciability | City’s challenge should be evaluated under CR 12(b)(6) on the merits, not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | CR 12(b)(1) dismissal appropriate for lack of justiciable controversy | CR 12(b)(1) was improper; issues should be assessed under CR 12(b)(6) or later summary judgment standards |
| Standing (injury in fact) for pre-enforcement UDJA challenge | Plaintiffs alleged ongoing unsecured storage, intent to continue, and concrete harm (forced purchase of safes / risk of civil infractions); organizations represent members who have standing | No enforcement action; plaintiffs did not plead intent to violate or a credible threat, so no injury-in-fact | At the 12(b)(6) stage plaintiffs plausibly alleged individual and representational standing; allegations suffice to show adverse effect |
| Ripeness of pre-enforcement challenge | Preemption issue is legal, fit for review; withholding relief forces plaintiffs to change conduct or risk penalties | Dispute not ripe; requires factual development and no present hardship alleged | Claim is ripe: legal question fit for decision and plaintiffs pleaded present hardship (alter practices or face liability) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Buecking, 179 Wn.2d 438 (Wash. 2013) (clarifies subject-matter jurisdiction concerns vs. case-specific defects)
- Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wn.2d 811 (Wash. 1973) (four-prong justiciability test for UDJA actions)
- To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403 (Wash. 2001) (UDJA standing/justiciability not purely jurisdictional)
- Boudreaux v. Weyerhaeuser, 10 Wn. App. 2d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019) (CR 12(b)(1) was improper vehicle; evaluate under CR 12(b)(6))
- Forbes v. Pierce County, 5 Wn. App. 2d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018) (pre-enforcement challenge to criminal penalties required either a direct threat or intent to violate under the case’s analysis)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2014) (Article III pre-enforcement standing standard relied upon in Forbes)
- FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954 (Wash. 2014) (CR 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
- Crane Towing, Inc. v. Gorton, 89 Wn.2d 161 (Wash. 1977) (plaintiff must show law’s enforcement will directly affect them to avoid advisory-opinion problem)
- Jafar v. Webb, 177 Wn.2d 520 (Wash. 2013) (ripeness analysis: legal fitness and hardship considerations)