West v. Thurston County, 169 Wash. App. 862

West filed a 2007 Thurston County Superior Court complaint naming multiple defendants including the Port of Olympia (Port) and asserting PRA violations, conspiracy, fraud, and unconstitutional expenditure of public funds.
The Port moved for dismissal or summary judgment on multiple grounds, arguing West failed to plead actual PRA violations, lacked a justiciable controversy for unconstitutional expenditures, and failed to allege facts supporting negligence or fraud (CR 12/CR 56).
West did not respond to the Port’s summary judgment motion.
The trial court (September 2010) dismissed West’s claims against the Port with prejudice as to the Port, while leaving other defendants resolved differently.
West sought reconsideration, contending newly discovered evidence and withheld material facts; the trial court denied reconsideration for procedural/substantive defects.
On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the Port, awarded attorney fees for a frivolous appeal, and dismissed Thurston County issues as moot due to settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Port was entitled to summary judgment	West failed to show any genuine issues of material fact	Port showed absence of facts supporting claims and no justiciable controversy	Yes; summary judgment proper for Port
Whether West’s appeal was frivolous and warranted fees	West’s appeal had arguable merit	Appeal was frivolous with no debatable issues	Yes; attorney fees awarded to Port
Whether dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) was appropriate even if treated as CR 56 dismissal	Not needed; failure to state a claim	CR 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate where no legally sufficient claim	Yes; CR 12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853 (Wash. 2004) (summary judgment standard; de novo review; burden shifting)
Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216 (Wash. 1989) (expert/affidavit requirement; genuine issues of material fact)
To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 100 Wn. App. 483 (Wash. App. 2000) (hypothetical facts insufficient to defeat CR 12(b)(6))
Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Syst., 109 Wn.2d 107 (Wash. 1987) (CR 12(b)(6) standard; failure to state a claim)
Bowman v. John Doe Two, 104 Wn.2d 181 (Wash. 1984) (hypothetical facts contesting dismissal under CR 12(b)(6))
Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745 (Wash. 1994) (relevance to CR 12(b)(6) and pleaded facts)
Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673 (Wash. 1978) (pleading requirements; sufficiency of allegations)
In re Recall of Feetham, 149 Wn.2d 860 (Wash. 2003) (frivolous appeal standard; fee shifting)
Millers Cas. Ins. v. Briggs, 100 Wn.2d 9 (Wash. 1983) (frivolous appeal standard; fee awards)