1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

E.W., a minor by and through CRAIG

SCHAUERMAN, her Guardian ad Litem,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS HENRY MOODY; BATTLE

GROUND SCHOOL DISTRICT #119, a

public corporation, MARLA D. ERATH, and

CYNTHIA S. LARSON,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-5253BHS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

CROSS-MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

NOTICE OF CLAIM ISSUE

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (Dkt. 53) and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Notice of Claim

Issue (Dkt. 78). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and opposition to the

motion and the remainder of the file herein and hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion and grants

Defendants’ motion for the following reasons.

Any person filing a tort claim against a local governmental entity must first comply with

the requirements of RCW 4.96.020(3). While the language contained in RCW 4.96.020 requires

substantial compliance with the content requirement of the claim, Washington courts have

strictly applied the procedural requirements of the statute. Atkins v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 393 F.

Supp. 2d 1065 ( W.D. Wash. 2005). The proper remedy for failure to comply with the

Case 3:06-cv-05253-BHS Document 106 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

procedural requirements of RCW 4.96.020 is dismissal of the suit against the governmental

entity. Wright v. Terrell, 135 Wash.App. 722 (2006).

While the language of RCW 4.96.020 is slightly different from the language in RCW

4.92.100, Washington courts have held that the two statutes have the same verification

requirements. Schoonover v. State, 116 Wash.App. 171 (2003). Whereas here the claim is filed

on behalf of a minor, “the claim must still ‘be verified, presented, and filed on behalf of the

claimant by any relative, attorney, or agent representing the claimant’.” Levy v. State, 91

Wash.App. 934, 943 (1998). An attorney’s signature alone on the notice of claim is not

sufficient to satisfy the procedural requirement of verification. Id.

In the instant action, “Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a Tort Claim Notice by certified mail,

return receipt requested, to H. Duane Rose, the designated claims agent for the Battle Ground

School District, on December 5, 2005.” Dkt. 53 at 2. The letter was not verified but was only

signed by counsel for Plaintiff. Dkt. 54-2 at 8. Since Plaintiff has not complied with the

procedural verification requirements of RCW 4.96.020, her state claims should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt.

53) is hereby DENIED and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Notice of

Claim Issue (Dkt. 78) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs state law tort claims against Battle

Ground School District, Marla D. Erath, and Cynthia S. Larson are hereby DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2007.

A 

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05253-BHS Document 106 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 2