led a very private life but for these episodes to try and set the tone for these arguments i want to quote to two important washington supreme court cases one is eastwood and it's not clint eastwood but his quote was the right to lead some of the light to the right to lead to some reasonable extent he secluded in private life free from the prying eyes ears and publication of others and then is another supreme court washes supreme court says nothing so exclusively belongs to a man or so personal and valuable to his as his name his reputation and the character he has built are inseparable connected with it others have no right to use or take it without his express consent i stand here with wait this is them doing this for thirty years this is a very important case i think it's a case that helps us to define what government can and cannot do i think it's a case that defines the power of government and the reason why the constitution in the laws that have been implemented to protect those rights are so very valuable in america we use the constitution to protect citizens from government not the other way around i think anybody that looks at what happened to my client in this case has to be targeted to really be tarred feather and then to have his situation used in his name called the karl hegland law not in a positive way we see victims sometimes have laws named after them with regard to the torch it interference of a business expectancy claim can you articulate your theory of damages caused by the defendant i can't and i want to point out that washington has a very robust tortious interference claim i know it's unique throughout the united states but washington uses tortious interference on claims against the government i've been involved with many of these so it's a very it's a unique law and that's why i think washington is unique to the judge's question i will so the allegations are that he was st of all the tenets themselves he had to give concessions to them because of the public what i would say bawling but he had to give concessions to those tenets member he was going to charge double rent but after the city hegland who was a real estate developer in this community would also had his reputation with banks affected by this developers have silent investors and so other partners that might want to invest money with them or be as partners allegations because the district court said that plaintiff has not identify any lost profits increased cost loss financing the singer and single investor lender who declined to enter into a venture with your client the backing off rent increases the district court relied on the fact that plaintive concedes that he backed off the rent increases himself instead of letting the code enforcement process play out on the violations where's the error in that  analysis of st of all the district court's reliance upon the independent business judgment rule is grounded because the supreme court of washington in bloom city of seattle versus blum overturned that and said the independent business rule doesn't apply but they answer your question more squarely is when you allege at the beginning of a case you're not sure exactly what the extent of those damages are what the federal rules require is that you allege what the nature of those damages are and that comes up through discovery and through the proof at some point when you're through discovery you're going to have to prove or satisfied that you've lost these profits so there's just the fact that the made public the  private right not to have your price known no it isn't actions what were alleging is that he did he when he raise the rent double as what he did which is his practice when he buys in all the lap attainted partment building he raises the ranch so that he can he's going to renovate it if tenants have to move out it makes it easier to renovate it so its practice is well known right yes so was he complaining about when somebody points out that's his practice is well no because when the city pays for the tenets most current tenets and other tenants to come out and rally against him and then what he when they say his practice is no well i don't i don't think anybody wants to know that your practices are that you're going to double the rent but they didn't tell the full story what the city did because they were looking for this the looking for something to make an example because what he did was legal he increased the rant i don't think he needs to have the whole public out there knowing that he's increased the rent no he's in business why why is prices a secret i don't i certainly wasn't a seeker with the tenets because that was lawful but when you go out and you describe person as a rat and you go out describe somebody know this is not a case of defamation a little that well go ahead with your argument and this puzzle i want to i want to make sure i squarely answer yours because that's why i'm here but i think it's the fact that the price is double but when you go out there and say and st of all your target you come up with two hundred and sixty dollars or two hundred and twenty five dollars violations and you're doing this all as a campaign a systematic approach if you claim violations were malevolently found and did not exist yes yes well then bought this property in august of two thousand and fifteen it passed the city's inspection and then when he bought it he increased the rig double because he was going to improve all of these he went back and found a different yes different group of very clearly is that these what we say the word trumped up you said malicious i think it's the same is that we absolutely are saying that because the city council member several of them wanted to create this monster that they st had to create the monster so after it just cleared the inspections i mean it got a clean bill of health six weeks later when they're looking for somebody to try to have a campaign about your honor you go in there and we say trumped up they had never sent out an army of inspectors they had never before inspected every apartment unit then he had yes we see we say that most of these were made up they were double counted we're not saying all that of course there's going to be some minor violations if you pull over a truck on the side of the road there's going to be a couple things there a violation but part of our allegation is that these were trumped up because what they were trying to do they didn't care about the truth what they were trying to do was create a monster that they could then put on a poster and say this is what we're trying to stop and so yeah that's part of our allegation it was a systematic approach it's exactly what happened in squab valley that this doesn't circuit court case here is where you're going out and with a pretext and your honor that's what we're saying and in pre defamation case this is this is a case against the government having overstepped its bounds using its powers to go ahead we don't know who you are ledged you claim that you've alleged that those two hundred some odd violations have met right where y persecuted charged him and then without his due process but yes your honor he he ended up not getting having to pay any fines the ones that he could fix to fix the other ones he showed the city this is this isn't a problem of the time and effort and  treasure and right including himself right now in my village those damages will be listed that's part of our damages claim but it pales in comparison to the fact that he had to he lawfully doubled his rent that was the whole purpose of the carl hey  pressure on him that they would put on other people who are similarly situated that's the kind of the tenor of the complaint so that goes the equal protection claim your argument today is a little bit different in terms of how you characterize the allegations lie think the word trumped up i hope i hope that you used the words trumped up means that a lot of them were false at least that's our allegation at this stage which i think has to be believed because it's a motion to dismiss but know you we've talked about a lot of them were multiple you see the same thing you counted three times i mean they were looking for a high number but they never seemed such a high number but they were trying to show how rotten this guy was so they double counted they come up with a lot of things the other thing is our theory is that they had conspired with the tenants because it was the tennis that went to the city and the city said hold on let's work together to make this happen so they're trying to make an example of them but i think the word trumped at least the way i was trying to use the word trumped up means that these were not legitimate they were they were they were not legitimate and secondly is that this was a pretext try to create the monster that they wanted to use as an example look at the email yes you are clean as a proximate cause of clearing the trumped up violations your man paid money and suffered economic loss correct if that is one of the allegations but again your honor i need you that's rising to through ninety of you complete yet it's all the way through the component i've probably when you get into the tortious interference we talk about that a little bit more but they answer and i want to save as much of the rest of my time but to answer your question your honor it public publicizing your the fact that you're doubling right is ok but going out at the same time and saying this is a slum lord this is a rat and then you you name a law after them you this law so i'm going to save the rest of my time thank your hon may please the court robert mitchell on the half of the city of seattle and council member schama so want this case raises the question of whether someone who's abusive business practices are exposed to public view may censor the political debate that ensues can you address the claim that was made by mr anderson that he actually did allege that there were phony violations need as  resolve of the city inspection and that it cost him money to clear the phony violations taking the nd point st year order i've never before this morning heard a complaint that the cost of remedying the violations which took mr haglund several months they were not cleared until may have two thousand and sixteen constituted damages that may be recoverable in this action would you would you accept the premise that if  governmental employee makes a malicious and phony claim that a violation exists and the violation doesn't exist and the plaintiff in this case has been money convincing know that the allegation is not that the costs of remedying the problems were recoverable from the city indeed the notice of violation was never challenged its validity was never a chat question and with respect to whether there's nothing here i would point to the fact that in this record at s c r fifteen and following is as an emergency order that was issued that required mr headland within three days to restore heat in three of these units because  a health and safety violation the required immediate are many cases of this court including this pretty well case the whole bit where the documents referred to in a complaint are part of the record the court should look at those documents themselves not the characterizations or conclusory allegations made about them to draw conclusions and properly resolve an emotion such as this the notice of violation by the way see its indication end of it specifically alleged in the nd a minute complaint or from the briefing in this case that  initial inspections that the building had passed initial inspection said it was only on the nd round after tenant complaints that these violations popped up is that correct that is correct your honor the initial inspection looked at one unit the nd inspection looked at eleven units and the nd inspection did find a multitude of violations those are in the record those were real violations they presented serious health and safety had to send so many inspectors that there was a coordinated request by the tenants to look at the building as a whole you don't know whether the unit passed inspection the st time was found to have violations the nd time i do not know when you're on i don't believe the record prevents and maybe mr henderson will miss out on that right so is i said your honor the question that this case presents is whether someone who's abusive business practices are exposed to public view has the power to censor the political debate that follows from that or to prohibit the use of his name on remedial legislation the answer to that question is no indeed under our system of government the answer must be respects with respect to tortious interference the court knows what the judge said in her order about the absence of any lost profits increased costs lost financing any tenet withheld grants and so forth mr haglund conceded that in his grief he claims that the alleged harm to his reputation and emotional distress sufficed to establish horses here and he conceded that there were no increased cos as a result of one's actions he did if you look at his brief your honor you'll see that you tell me where that is in the brief certainly are page twelve of his brief opening brief his opening brief your honor read it he quotes the very language the judge and when just quoted in then says but had been sufficiently alleged causation in damages denied or shunned from trade in the community organizations and faced difficulties with key business partners and lending institutions and so forth goes on to talk about the emotional distress just mention an increased cost but he doesn't say i didn't have an increase costs that's tortious interference claim with respect to common law misappropriation judge peckman held that alleged misappropriation is not actionable with a publication relates to matters that are in the public interest this was clearly in the public interest indeed that has to be admitted here also the defendants made no commercial use of mr haggans name or likeness that's conceded as well with respect to the equal protection claim judge peckman that mr headland failed to show the requisite level of similarity between two alleged compare tours he identified three of their slumlords and said one of them was worse overall but none of them did what mr haglund did which was to double impermissible motive is this court held in freeman vs city of santa ana selective enforcement does not make the defendants action irrational with respect to due process judge peckman held that hagman had failed to establish a he did not identify any liberty or property interest protected by the due process clause nor any governmental action that provided them of those interests paul versus davis in secret versus gillie both pulled that reputational harm is not be due process violation not only which judge peckman order correct in addition independent grounds exist for affirming the dismissal of each of these four claims with respect to there was no plausible allegation of improper purpose or improper means rather just a conclusion the allegation to that effect which it paul says is not enough nd speech that is protected under the constitution cannot create liability for tortious interference that's what the wash and supreme court the absolute right to discuss matters of public concern and to encourage mr headwinds tenants to demand habitable living conditions trumps any alleged interference with mr haggans business that's the teaching of the tacoma automobile case and finally council members who want had a qualified privilege to speak on the matter relevant to her official duties as would vs battleground school district to overcome that privilege mr haglund had to show by convincingly clear proof and abbott presence of actual malice which is knowing falshood or reckless disregard for the truth mr headland did not convincingly allege that in the deed new head no i reasoned to think that what she was saying about him was false she harbored no doubt whatever that he was in a tory slumlord with respect to the misappropriation claim mr headland had his name had no commercial or other positive value to appropriate and the incidental use of his name is protected is as is any use in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities as a landlord his activities were public appointed out with respect to the equal protection and due process clause council members who want enjoys qualified immunity of from liability under section one thousand nine hundred and three she committed no constitutional violation or obvious violation of mr haglund constitutional rights and the city may not be held liable under monella unless it acted to pursuant to an official policy or custom mr headland admits that the practice of which he complains began with him in the fall of two thousand and fifteen in involves no one else neither the common law of nor the us constitution supports haglund attempt to punish suppress political speech to the contrary both the common law and the constitution erect multiple barriers in protections for robust political speech they stand as both works against abuse of the judicial process through claims such as those asserted here by mr haglund judge peckman is order granting partial summary judgment or partial judgment on the pleadings rather to the city and council members who want should be a you credibility matters and matters to me i went back and looked at the complaint we don't specifically alleged we say trumped up when we say duplicate we don't specifically allege that that they were false i think the word trumped up so i went back and looked at that again that's what we've ledge there the th that we do say in the same paragraph that they only tested to the st time which is the pattern of what the city does they only inspect a couple but when they came out with their army on the nd inspection they enjoy vesta gaited all thirteen your honor i don't we don't allege whether they found some in in there or not but i can tell you that they investigated all thirteen and they came up with two hundred and so i think that is part of our allegation is that these weren't legitimate violations because they applied a condominium conversion standard completely with you allege it damages just it just to wrap up is that in what in washington emotional distress is a damage you can get on for tortious interference because it's an intentional tort selective enforcement and then i'll conclude selective enforcement the law is very clear in this in this district is that selective enforcement is fine as long as you don't have a pretext for that and i think we have alleged sufficient facts to show that there was a pretext for the systematic foresman and labeling and all these other things so that you can enforce these but if you don't force it differently and you have a a a in tension or a mal intent in doing so then that falls out of your selective enforcement conclude with that like  say one last thing st amendment in this destroy they're asking you to say that there's a st amendment protection for public agents and the th circuit has not held such that the st amendment protects