Slidewaters LLC v. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, No. 20-35634 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief and dismissal of state and federal claims in an action brought by Slidewaters LLC, challenging the State of Washington's imposition of COVID-19 restrictions prohibiting the waterpark from operating during 2020 and imposing capacity limits in 2021.
The panel concluded that defendants have the authority under Washington law to impose the restrictions and that doing so does not violate Slidewaters' asserted rights under the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the governor had the lawful authority under Revised Code of Washington 43.06.010(12) to issue Proclamation 20-05, because the pandemic was both a public disorder and a disaster affecting life and health in Washington. Furthermore, the State Department of Labor and Industries, in promulgating an emergency rule as part of the state's efforts to curb the pandemic, Washington Administrative Code 296-800-14035, acted within its scope of authority. The panel explained that government regulation does not constitute a violation of constitutional substantive due process rights simply because the businesses or persons to whom the regulation is applied do not agree with the regulation or its application; defendants provided a rational basis for the proclamations and related rules; and the substantive due process rights of Slidewaters, its owners, and its employees are not violated by defendants' actions. Therefore, Slidewaters' application for injunctive relief was properly denied and its claims were properly dismissed. The panel also concluded that the district court did not err in consolidating Slidewaters' motion for preliminary injunction with a hearing on the merits or in reaching Slidewaters' state law claims.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief and dismissal of state and federal claims in an action brought by the owner of a waterpark in Chelan County, Washington who challenged the State’s restrictions, imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, prohibiting the waterpark from operating during 2020 and imposing capacity limits in 2021. The panel held that defendants had the authority under Washington law to impose the restrictions and that doing so did not violate plaintiff’s asserted rights under the U.S. Constitution. Addressing the state law claims, the panel held that the governor had the lawful authority under Revised Code of Washington § 43.06.010(12) to issue Proclamation 20-05, as the pandemic was both a public disorder and a disaster affecting life and health in Washington. The panel further held that the State Department of Labor and Industries, in promulgating an emergency rule as part of the state’s efforts to curb the pandemic, Washington Administrative Code § 296-800-14035, acted within its scope of authority. The panel held that the executive branch’s actions did not violate the principle of separation of powers with regard to the legislative branch; and the actions of defendants also did not violate the principle of separation of powers with regard to the judicial branch. The panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that state-level entities were not the SLIDEWATERS V. WASH. STATE DEP’T OF LABOR 3 proper entities to address the pandemic and that the state of emergency and resulting state actions unlawfully impinged on the authority of county health officials. The panel held that the substantive due process rights of the waterpark, its owners, and its employees were not violated by defendants’ actions. The panel held that the right to pursue a common calling or use property as one wishes are not considered fundamental rights and defendants provided a rational basis for the proclamations and related rules. The panel held that plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief was properly denied, and the district court did not err in consolidating plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction with a hearing on the merits or in reaching plaintiff’s state law claims. The panel noted that the district court gave clear and unambiguous notice to the parties of its intent to consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2) and provided a schedule for supplemental submissions. Plaintiff was not substantially prejudiced by the consolidation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in how it organized its consideration of the issues before it. Finally, the panel held that the state law claims did not require abstention under the Pullman doctrine and certification of questions to the Washington Supreme Court was not required in this instance, as the answers to the state law questions were not uncertain. 4 SLIDEWATERS V. WASH. STATE DEP’T OF LABOR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.