Worthington v. City of Bremerton (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Washington Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Washington Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss a civil suit filed by pro se litigant John Worthington. He responded by filing a special motion to strike under the Washington Act Limiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). The trial court denied the motion and imposed financial sanctions on Worthington on grounds that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The Supreme Court found only that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court on the issue of the monetary sanction: the statute under which authority the trial court used in applying the sanctions was made invalid at the time of Worthington's anti-SLAPP motion.
Download PDF
Fli:"E·" 1~1 This opinion was filed for record CLERKS OFFICE ' /U~~~v~ ' at ~~ 004- on 0eLIS'1 2JJt lf Ow,S2(Clt~-SUSAN L CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JOHN WORTHINGTON, Petitioner, NO. 9 3 1 7 3-9 v. ENBANC CITY OF BREMERTON; CITY OF POULSBO; CITY OF PORT ORCHARD; KITSAP COUNTY; STATE OF WASHINGTON; WESTNET AFFILIATE JURISDICTIONS, Filed: ________i_ _ .. Respondents. PER CURIAM-When the city of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss a civil suit filed by pro se litigant John Worthington, he responded by filing a special motion to strilce under the Washington Act Limiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute), RCW 4.24.525(4). The trial court denied the motion, and in accordance with RCW 4.24.525(6)(b), it imposed fmancial sanctions on Worthington on the basis that his anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged No. 93173-9 PAGE2 that this court invalidated the anti-SLAPP statute in its entirety on constitutional grounds in Davis v. Cox, 183 Wn.2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015), it still affirmed the trial court's decision. Because Worthington's appeal was still pending when we issued our controlling decision in Davis, we reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue and vacate the statutory sanctions. Worthington has been submitting public records requests to Kitsap County and other government entities for nearly a decade in relation to what he describes as a 2007 drug enforcement raid on his residence. He has also filed a number of lawsuits alleging Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, violations in the responses to his requests. See Worthington v. WestNET, 182 Wn.2d 500, 341 P.3d 995 (2015). In 2014, Worthington, acting pro se, filed an action against Kitsap County and other governmental entities, mainly asserting violations of the PRA. Kitsap Cotmty moved to dismiss Worthington's action under CR 12(b)(6) and sought sanctions under CR 11. Worthington responded with an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike. See RCW 4.24.525(4). The county urged the trial court to deny the anti-SLAPP motion as frivolous and to award it costs, reasonable attorney fees, and $10,000 in statutory damages. See RCW 4.24.525(6)(b) (target of anti-SLAPP motion may be awarded to costs, attorney fees, and $10,000 if trial court finds motion to be frivolous). In May 2014, the trial court granted the county's motion to dismiss and awarded it $5,000 in CR 11 sanctions. By separate order, the trial court found Worthington's anti-SLAPP motion to be frivolous and awarded the county $2,400 in costs and $10,000 in statutory damages in accordance with RCW 4.24.525. Worthington appealed on multiple grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed m all respects. As to the anti-SLAPP issue, the court acknowledged that while No. 93173-9 PAGE3 Worthington's appeal was pending, we held that the special motion to strike procedure authorized under RCW 4.24.525(4)(b) violates the right to a jury trial guaranteed by article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution. Davis, 183 Wn.2d at 294. But the court reasoned that the trial court properly denied Worthington's antiSLAPP motion and sanctioned him under the statute because Worthington's case preceded our decision in Davis. Worthington v. City of Bremerton, No. 46364-4-II, slip op. at 11 n.ll (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2016) (unpublished), https ://www .courts. wa.gov/opinions/pdfi'46364-4.16.pdf. Worthington subsequently filed a petition for review on several grounds, including the imposition of monetary sanctions. Although he does not cite RCW 4.24.525(6)(b), his argument implicates the propriety of imposing sanctions under that provision. We now grant review as to that issue only and reverse. We invalidated RCW 4.24.525 in its entirety while Worthington's appeal was pending, which the Court of Appeals acknowledged. See Davis, 183 Wn.2d at 294-95. Our decision in Davis was thus controlling on the validity of the trial court's imposition of sanctions under that tmconstitutional statute. Illustratively, this court reversed and vacated RCW 4.24.525 anti-SLAPP penalties imposed on a party that withdrew its appeal in a case that was pending when Davis was decided. Akrie v. Grant, 183 Wn.2d 665, 668, 355 P.3d 1087 (2015). As we there noted, "basic fairness demands that we not sustain a penalty imposed pursuant to a statute we have held unconstitutional." Id. Here, the record shows that the trial court imposed sanctions on Worthington for filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion. RCW 4.24.525(6)(b). These sanctions are no longer valid tmder Davis. See Akrie, 183 Wn.2d at 668. Financial No. 93173-9 ---------------- PAGE4 penalties imposed on Worthington under RCW 4.24.525(6)(b) must therefore be vacated. 1 The Court of Appeals is reversed solely on the issue of financial penalties under RCW 4.24.525, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 The trial court's denial of Worthington's anti-SLAPP special motion to strike is unaffected, since the statute is invalid in its entirety. See Davis, 183 Wn.2d at 294-95 (unconstitutional portion of RCW 4.24.525 could not be severed from its remaining provisions, thus rending entire statute invalid).
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.
