304 P.3d 914
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kailin petitioned for a state-search warrant under RCW 69.41.060 to seize fluorides and related equipment from Port Angeles and Forks.
- Kailin alleged fluorides are legend drugs and that the cities lacked FDA approval to fluoridate water.
- The superior court denied Kailin’s ex parte warrant and later Kailin’s civil complaint to obtain a warrant was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court also denied Kailin’s motion to amend to declare fluorides are drugs; it refused sanctions against Kailin.
- The court held RCW 69.41.060 does not create a private cause of action and the amendment would be futile in light of Kaul.
- This court affirmed, ruling no private action exists, and sanctions were properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RCW 69.41.060 create a private action? | Kailin asserts a private right to seek a warrant. | Cities contend it is a public criminal-enforcement tool, not a private action. | No private cause of action exists. |
| Was the amendment to declare fluorides are drugs futile? | Amendment would allow declaratory relief that fluorides are drugs. | Amendment would be futile given Kaul holding that fluorides are not drugs under state law. | Amendment properly denied; futile. |
| Were sanctions appropriate against Kailin? | N/A | N/A | Sanctions not warranted; good faith arguments permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1979) (private rights and public enforcement analysis guiding private action discussion)
- Great N. Ry. v. King, 98 Wash. 197 (Wash. 1917) (public enforcement via search warrants context)
- Kaul v. City of Chehalis, 45 Wn.2d 616 (Wash. 1954) (fluoridation not a drug under state law; dictates amendment futility)
- Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912 (Wash. 1990) (implied private action analysis (Bennett factors))
- City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260 (Wash. 1994) (private/public action distinction in search warrants context)
- To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403 (Wash. 2001) (context for CR 12 analysis and pleadings)
- Kaul v. City of Chehalis, 45 Wn.2d 616 (Wash. 1954) (core fact that fluorides are not drugs under WA law)
- Our Water — Our Choice! v. Port Angeles, 170 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2010) (binding precedent on fluoride litigation and public health regulation)
- McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, 169 Wn.2d 96 (Wash. 2010) (statutory interpretation standard and rulings on CR 12)