FILED

COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION kI

2015 FEB I O MI 8: 56

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

HAFID TAHRAOUI, an individual, 

Appellant, 

v. 

FRANKLIN BROWN, RUSTIN WILDER, 

ERIN ORBITS, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 - 4

individually, and in his or her official Capacity, 

PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, 

PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF, a county

agency; and PIERCE COUNTY

PROSECUTOR, a county agency, 

Respondents. 

No. 44829 -7 -II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

JOHANSON, C.J. — Hafid Tahraoui appeals from a superior court' s order dismissing his

claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress

or " outrage" under CR 12( c). We hold that the superior court erred by dismissing Tahraoui' s

malicious prosecution claim because he alleged sufficient facts to preclude CR 12( c) dismissal. 

But we hold that the superior court did not err by dismissing Tahraoui' s abuse of process claim

because the alleged abuse was merely the institution ofthe process itself, nor did the court err by

dismissing Tahraoui' s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the alleged
No. 44829 -7 -II

offensive conduct was not extreme and outrageous. We hold further that the Pierce County

Sheriff' s Department is not a proper party to this action and, therefore, must be dismissed. 

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. 

FACTS

In May 2008, Tahraoui bought a generator that Eric Pate advertised for sale on

Craigslist. "1 After that purchase, Tahraoui bought several additional tools and also asked ifPate' s

forklift was for sale. When Tahraoui returned the next day, a man named "Shelly "2 was conducting

a garage sale at the residence, and he told Tahraoui that Pate would be available shortly. Clerk' s

Papers ( CP) at 56. But before Tahraoui could speak to Pate, he saw Pate, visibly upset, leave the

home. Tahraoui bought several items from the garage sale, including a trailer hitch for $70. 

The next day, Pate telephoned Tahraoui, told him that the hitch was not for sale, and asked

for its immediate return. Tahraoui refused because Shelly sold it to him. Pate contacted the

sheriff' s department to report that Tahraoui stole the hitch. Deputy Sheriff Franklin Brown called

Tahraoui, and according to Tahraoui, left the following voicemail: 

Hafid, this is Deputy Brown with the Pierce County Sheriff' s Department. 

You took the trailer hitch from [Pate] from his house. I' ll bet that you will return

the hitch before I get my hand on you and put you in the Pierce County Jail. If you

want to contact me call 911 and ask for Deputy Brown." 

1 Because this case involves a CR 12( c) dismissal on the pleadings, the facts are drawn and

summarized from Tahraoui' s complaint and we must assume the truth of those facts pursuant to

the court rule. 

2 Tahraoui asserts that Shelly is Pate' s stepfather. Deputy Brown does not dispute this contention

directly, but refers to Shelly only as " a third party." Neither party provides a surname, so Shelly

is used throughout. 
No. 44829 -7 -II

CP at 31. Tahraoui returned Deputy Brown' s call, told Brown that he had purchased the hitch, 

and implored Deputy Brown to hear his version of the events. Notwithstanding Tahraoui' s

explanation, Deputy Brown allegedly threatened to arrest Tahraoui. Tahraoui denied Deputy

Brown' s request for his' home address. 

After speaking with Deputy Brown, Tahraoui spoke with Lieutenant Rustin Wilder of the

sheriff' s department who promised to investigate Tahraoui' s complaint relating to Brown' s " bias" 

and " mishandling" of the theft claim. According to Tahraoui, Lieutenant Wilder attempted to

deceive Tahraoui by suggesting that Tahraoui come to the South Hill Precinct to make a statement

about his complaints. Tahraoui believed that Lieutenant Wilder' s request was a ruse designed to

facilitate Tahraoui' s arrest. Tahraoui claimed that he relayed these suspicions to Lieutenant

Wilder, who momentarily tried to hide his intentions, but ultimately admitted that Tahraoui was

facing arrest for "multiple crimes including theft and extortion." CP at 32 -33. 

Tahraoui maintained that Lieutenant Wilder accused him of lying and that Lieutenant

Wilder attempted to coerce prosecutors to elevate the severity of Tahraoui' s charges in retaliation

for Tahraoui' s complaints. Tahraoui also asserted that Deputy Brown deliberately forwarded a

false report to the prosecuting attorney by refusing to disclose his knowledge that Tahraoui paid

for the hitch. 

Over the following weeks, according to Tahraoui, other deputies from the sheriff' s

department called him, again threatening arrest, and on one occasion, deputies visited his work

place. Tahraoui claimed that he avoided arrest by " ke[ eping] him self [sic] out of reach." CP at

33. Tahraoui maintained that he lived in fear ofimminent arrest over the course ofthe next several

months, limiting his movement and avoiding Pierce County. Tahraoui stated that he hoped that

3
No. 44829 -7 -II

his problem with the sheriffwould "go away over time." CP at 33. But in March of 2009, Tahraoui

received a criminal complaint charging him with theft, a charge which prosecutors apparently

refused to drop despite Tahraoui' s request. Tahraoui was arraigned, but the charges were

subsequently dismissed with prejudice. 

Tahraoui brought suit against Deputy Brown, Lieutenant Wilder, Erin Orbits, John and

Jane Does 1 - 4, Pierce County, Pierce County Sheriff' s Department, and the Pierce County

Prosecuting Attorney' s Office (collectively "the County ") alleging a number of federal3 and state

law causes of action, including those discussed below.4 Before the superior court, the County

moved for dismissal on the pleadings under CR 12( c). 5 The superior court considered the County' s

motion for judgment on the pleadings, Tahraoui' s response in opposition to that motion, and the

County' s reply. Finding that Tahraoui failed to allege facts capable of sustaining his claims, the

superior court entered an order dismissing Tahraoui' s case with prejudice. Tahraoui appeals. 

3 The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 

The district court dismissed each ofTahraoui' s federal claims and remanded to the superior court

for consideration of his remaining state law claims. 

4 The record is not clear as to what role Orbits occupied nor does it contain any reference to John

and Jane Does 1 - 4. 

5 CR 12( c) provides, 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed but within

such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the

pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the

pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated

as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in rule 56, and all parties

shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such

a motion by rule 56. 

4
No. 44829 -7 -II

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a dismissal under CR 12( c) de novo, examining the pleadings to determine

whether the claimant can prove any set of facts, consistent with the complaint that would entitle

the claimant to relief. Parrilla v. King County, 138 Wn. App. 427, 431, 157 P.3d 879 (2007). And

we treat a CR 12( c) motion for judgment on the pleadings identically to a CR 12( b)( 6) motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim. Suleiman v. Lasher, 48 Wn. App. 373, 376, 739 P.2d 712

citing Jack H. Friedenthal, Mary Kay Kane & Arthur R. Miller, Civil Procedure 294 -95 ( 1985)), 

review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1005 ( 1987). Like a CR 12( b)( 6) motion, the purpose is to determine

if a plaintiff can prove any set of facts that would justify relief. Suleiman, 48 Wn. App. at 376

citing Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 ( 1978)). "` In making this determination, 

a trial court must presume that the plaintiff s allegations are true and may consider hypothetical

facts that are not included in the record. "' P.E. Sys., LLC v. CPI Corp., 176 Wn.2d 198, 210 -11, 

289 P. 3d 638 (2012) (quoting Parmelee v. O' Neel, 145 Wn. App. 223, 232, 186 P. 3d 1094 ( 2008), 

rev 'd in part, 168 Wn.2d 515, 229 P.3d 723 ( 2010)). 

II. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

Tahraoui contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for malicious

prosecution because he alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Deputy Brown did not act in

good faith, lacked probable cause, and failed to conduct a meaningful investigation. 6 The County

6 Tahraoui also argues that the superior court should have stricken "or at least disregarded" portions

ofDeputy Brown' s CR 12( c) motion statement offacts because it contained misleading statements. 

Br. ofAppellant at 11. Because our review is de novo, and we are required to consider the facts

and the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the facts relied on here are from

Tahraoui' s complaint. 

5
No. 44829 -7 -II

responds that Tahraoui' s malicious prosecution claim fails because the existence of probable

cause, which was present in this case, is a complete defense to an alleged claim for malicious

prosecution. We hold that the trial court erred by dismissing Tahraoui' s claim for malicious

prosecution because he alleged sufficient facts that, if proven, could potentially establish the

elements of malicious prosecution. 

A. RULES of LAW

To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege and prove that ( 1) 

the prosecution was instituted or continued by the defendant, (2) there was want of probable cause

for the institution or continuation ofthe proceeding, ( 3) the proceeding was instituted or continued

through malice, (4) the proceeding was terminated on the merits in favor of the plaintiff or was

abandoned, and ( 5) plaintiff suffered injury as a result ofthe prosecution. Bender v. City ofSeattle, 

99 Wn.2d 582, 593, 664 P.2d 492 ( 1983). Although the malicious prosecution plaintiffmust prove

all required elements, malice and want of probable cause constitute the gist of a malicious

prosecution action; as such, proof of probable cause is an absolute defense. Hanson v. City of

Snohomish, 121 Wn.2d 552, 558, 852 P.2d 295 ( 1993); Brin v. Stutzman, 89 Wn. App. 809, 819, 

951 P.2d 291, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1004 ( 1998). 

B. ANALYSIS

Tahraoui argues that he alleged sufficient facts that demonstrate that probable cause was

absent because Deputy Brown was careless in conducting his investigation and because he did not

provide the prosecuting attorney with a full and fair disclosure, in good faith, of all material facts

known to him. The County contends that probable cause existed to believe that Tahraoui

6
No. 44829 -7 -II

committed the crime of theft based on statements submitted by Pate and corroborating evidence

from the phone call with Tahraoui himself notwithstanding an allegedly insufficient investigation

and the existence of an affirmative defense. 

The County correctly asserts that the existence of an affirmative defense does not vitiate

probable cause. McBride v. Walla Walla County, 95 Wn. App. 33, 40, 975 P. 2d 1029, 990 P.2d

967 ( 1999). It is equally correct that Washington does not recognize a claim for negligent

investigation by members of law enforcement. Fondren v. Klickitat County, 79 Wn. App. 850, 

862, 905 P.2d 928 ( 1995). And in the context of a malicious prosecution claim, Washington courts

have long held that probable cause, which is a complete defense to a claim for malicious

prosecution, is deemed established as a matter of law, 

i]f it clearly appears that the defendant, before instituting criminal

proceedings against the plaintiff, made to the prosecuting attorney a full and fair

disclosure, in good faith, of all the material facts known to him, and that the

prosecutor thereupon preferred a criminal charge and caused the arrest of the

accused." 

Bender, 99 Wn.2d at 593 ( quoting Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wn.2d 485, 499- 

50, 125 P.2d 681 ( 1942)). But the corollary to this rule is that if any issue of fact exists as to

whether or not the prosecuting witness did fully and truthfully communicate to the prosecuting

attorney all of the facts and circumstances within his knowledge, then the issue is submitted to a

jury. Bender, 99 Wn.2d at 594 ( quoting Peasley, 13 Wn.2d at 499 -500). 

7 A person commits the crime of theft when he or she wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized

control over property of another with the intent to deprive that person of the property. RCW

9A.56.020( 1)( a). 

7
No. 44829 -7 -II

Here, Tahraoui asserts that the charges filed against him were predicated on disclosures

that were not full and fair. Specifically, Tahraoui contends that Deputy Brown did not disclose

the fact that Tahraoui had purchased the hitch. Assuming the truth of the alleged facts as we must

under CR 12( c), Tahraoui can conceivably establish want of probable cause. Because Tahraoui

alleges that Deputy Brown did not make a full and fair disclosure of all the facts known to him, 

Tahraoui could potentially prove a set of facts that would justify relief. Suleiman, 48 Wn. App. at

376. 

Tahraoui also alleges facts that appear to support the necessary malice element. Tahraoui

asserts that Wilder vindictively pursued charges against him in retaliation for Tahraoui' s

disparaging remarks about Wilder' s subordinates. Again presuming the truth ofthose allegations, 

a combination of Tahraoui' s claims combined with hypothetical facts that we are entitled to

consider pursuant to CR 12( c) also render Tahraoui' s establishment of that element conceivably

possible. CPI Corp., 176 Wn.2d at 210 -11 ( we presume the truth of the allegations and may

consider hypothetical facts not in the record). 

Malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause and from proof that the investigation

or prosecution was undertaken with improper motives or reckless disregard for the plaintiff' s

rights. Youker v. Douglas County, 162 Wn. App. 448, 464, 258 P. 3d 60, review denied, 173 Wn.2d

1002 ( 2011). But malice may not be inferred from the lack of probable cause alone; for the

inference of malice to be justified, the plaintiff must also demonstrate some affirmative acts

disclosing at least some feeling of "' bitterness, animosity or vindictiveness towards the

appellant. ' Youker, 162 Wn. App. at 464 ( internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Moore v. 

Smith, 89 Wn.2d 932, 943, 578 P.2d 26 ( 1978)). The " reckless disregard" that can support an

8
No. 44829 -7 -II

inference of malice requires proof of bad faith, a higher standard than negligence. State v. 

Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 468, 158 P.3d 595 ( 2007). And impropriety of motive may be

established in cases of this sort by proof that the defendant instituted the criminal proceedings

against the plaintiff (1) without believing him to be guilty, or (2) primarily because of hostility or

ill will toward him, or (3) for the purpose of obtaining a private advantage as against him. Bender, 

99 Wn.2d at 594. 

Tahraoui asserts that " Wilder was mad at the Plaintiff because he complained about

Brown' s actions." CP at 38. If, as Tahraoui claims, Lieutenant Wilder vindictively pursued

charges against Tahraoui in retaliation for Tahraoui' s aspersions regarding Deputy Brown, 

Tahraoui would demonstrate affirmative acts disclosing bitterness or animosity. Youker, 162 Wn. 

App. at 464. And if Lieutenant Wilder instituted criminal proceedings against Tahraoui without

believing him to be guilty, Tahraoui could establish the kind of improper motive that supports an

inference of malice. Bender, 99 Wn.2d at 594 ( quoting Peasley, 13 Wn.2d at 502). 

Accordingly, Tahraoui alleged sufficient facts to preclude CR 12( c) dismissal when viewed

in a light most favorable to Tahraoui as the nonmoving party. The trial court erred by dismissing

his malicious prosecution claim on the pleadings. 

II. ABUSE OF PROCESS

Tahraoui argues that he submitted sufficient facts to support his abuse of process claim

because Lieutenant Wilder and Deputy Brown instituted criminal proceedings in furtherance of an

ulterior motive, namely, their desire to coerce Tahraoui into returning the trailer hitch. We hold

that an abuse of process claim does not withstand scrutiny if the alleged abuse was simply the

institution ofthe process itself. 

9
No. 44829 -7 -II

A. RULES OF LAW

To prove the tort of abuse of process, the party must show both "`( 1) the existence of an

ulterior purpose to accomplish an object not within the proper scope of the process, and ( 2) an act

in the use of legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings. ' Saldivar v. 

Momah, 145 Wn. App. 365, 388, 186 P. 3d 1117 ( 2008) ( quoting Mark v. Williams, 45 Wn. App. 

182, 191, 724 P.2d 428, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1015 ( 1986)), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1049

2009). Abuse of process is the misuse or misapplication of the process after the initiation of the

legal proceeding for an end other than that which the process was designed to accomplish. 

Loeffelholz v. Citizensfor Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119 Wn. App. 

665, 699 -700, 82 P.3d 1199, review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1023 ( 2004). But the "' mere institution

of a legal proceeding even with a malicious motive does not constitute an abuse of process.' 

Momah, 145 Wn. App. at 388 ( quoting Fite v. Lee, 11 Wn. App. 21, 27 -28, 521 P.2d 964, review

denied, 84 Wn.2d 1005 ( 1974)). 

B. ANALYSIS

Tahraoui argues that he alleged sufficient facts to show that the County misused the legal

process to accomplish an ulterior purposethe return ofthe trailer hitch to Pate. We disagree. 

Importantly, Tahraoui does not complain of any abuse of the process occurring after the

institution of the proceeding. "` [ T] he gist of [ an abuse of process] action is the misuse or

misapplication ofthe process, after it has once been issued, for an end other than that which it was

designed to accomplish. ' Loeffelholz, 119 Wn. App. at 699 ( quoting Batten v. Abrams, 28 Wn. 

App. 737, 745, 626 P.2d 984, review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1033 ( 1981)). That is to say, the action

requires "' a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the course of negotiation, rather than the

10
No. 44829 -7 -I1

issuance or any formal use ofthe process itself, which constitutes the tort. "' Loeffelholz, 119 Wn. 

App. at 699 -700 (quoting Batten, 28 Wn. App. at 746). 

Here, Tahraoui alleged only that the institution of the criminal proceeding against him

constituted an abuse of process because it was done with an ulterior purpose to accomplish an

object not within the proper scope of the process. The facts show nothing about process having

been abused " after it ha[ d] once been issued." Loeffelholz, 119 Wn. App. at 699. Tahraoui argues

that Loeffelholz and Momah are distinguishable because the abuse of process actions involved in

those cases were counterclaims raised by defendants rather than claims raised by the plaintiff. 

Tahraoui offers no explanation and no citation to authority to support the proposition that a cause

of action in the form of a counterclaim should be treated differently than an identical action brought

by a plaintiff when the essential elements remain the same. We hold that Tahraoui' s claim fails

because he alleges only malicious institution of a legal proceeding, which, alone, does not establish

an abuse of process claim. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing Tahraoui' s abuse of

process claim. 

III. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Tahroui argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his intentional infliction of emotion

distress or " outrage" claim because he was " deprived of his freedom of movement," unable to go

to work, fearful of his imminent arrest, and because he suffered emotional distress. Br. of

Appellant at 23. We hold that Tahraoui' s claim fails because he failed to allege facts that establish

extreme and outrageous conduct beyond mere indignities or threats. 

11
No. 44829 -7 -II

A. RULES OF LAW

To prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress, a plaintiffmust show ( 1) 

extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and

3) the plaintiff actually suffers severe emotional distress. Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn.2d 192, 195, 

66 P. 3d 630 (2003). In order for conduct to constitute the tort ofoutrage, it must be "` so outrageous

in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be

regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. ' Wolf v. Scott Wetzel

Servs., Inc., 113 Wn.2d 665, 677, 782 P. 2d 203 ( 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting

Guffey v. State, 103 Wn.2d 144, 146, 690 P.2d 1163 ( 1984), overruled on other grounds by

Babcock v. State, 116 Wn.2d 596, 809 P.2d 143 ( 1991)). The conduct must be more than insults, 

indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 

124 Wn. App. 454, 474, 98 P. 3d 827 ( 2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 ( 2005). 

B. ANALYSIS

Tahraoui claims that the conduct to which he was subject rose to a level above a mere threat

of arrest "[ b] ecause those threat [ sic] were eminent [ sic] and caused the plaintiff to go in hiding." 

CP at 43. We disagree. 

An examination of cases where our courts have upheld a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress reveals that the acts about which Tahraoui complains do not constitute extreme

and outrageous conduct. For example, in Kloepfel, Kloepfel' s former boyfriend threatened to kill

her, threatened to kill the man she was dating if she continued seeing him, called her home 640

times, called her work 100 times, called the homes of men she knew numerous times, and

repeatedly drove past her house at all hours. 149 Wn.2d at 194 -95. The evidence showed that this

12
No. 44829 -7 -II

conduct severely disrupted Kloepfel' s life and made it impossible for her to carry on a normal

dating relationship. Kloepfel, 149 Wn.2d at 194. And there was affirmative evidence that this

conduct caused Kloepfel to suffer symptoms of emotional distress, including nervousness, 

sleeplessness, hypervigilance, and stomach upset. 8 Kloepfel, 149 Wn.2d at 195. 

There, the court concluded that no rational person could endure this constant harassment

without suffering severe emotional distress. Kloepfel, 149 Wn.2d at 202; see also Grimsby v. 

Samson, 85 Wn.2d 52, 60, 530 P.2d 291 ( 1975) ( finding outrage where, as a result ofthe defendant

doctor' s actions, the plaintiffwas required to helplessly witness "` the terrifying agony and explicit

pain and suffering

ofhis wife while she proceeded to die right in front of his eyes ... because of

his inability to secure any medical care or treatment for his wife "). 

Here, there were a total of three arguably harassing, threatening, or otherwise annoying

phone calls, one of which Tahraoui himself initiated. On one occasion, deputies sought to speak

to Tahraoui at his place of employment. Although he alleges that his emotional distress resulted

from constant fear of an arrest he considered imminent, Tahraoui was never actually contacted by

law enforcement in person nor was he arrested. The conduct about which Tahraoui complains is

not so "' outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of

decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Wolf, 

113 Wn.2d at 677 ( quoting Guffey, 103 Wn.2d at 146). 

8 Unlike a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the Kloepfel court held that a claim

of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not require proof of " objective

symptomatology" or medical diagnosis. 149 Wn.2d at 194. Accordingly, the fact that Tahraoui

alleges only mental and emotional distress, does not, by itself, bar recovery. 

13
No. 44829 -7 -II

Accordingly, we hold that Tahraoui failed to allege sufficient facts to sustain his claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing

Tahraoui' s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. 

IV. PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT NOT PROPER PARTY

Finally, we address the County' s position that the Pierce County Sheriff' s Department must

be dismissed from the lawsuit because, unlike Pierce County itself, the sheriff s department is not

an entity capable of being sued. 

The legislature has expressly stated that counties may be sued, RCW 36.01. 010, but our

courts have determined that county departments cannot be sued unless the laws creating those

departments allow them to be sued directly. Roth v. Drainage Improvement Dist. No. 5, ofClark

County, 64 Wn.2d 586, 588, 392 P. 2d 1012 ( 1964). Thus, to determine whether an entity has the

capacity to sue or be sued, we examine the legislative enactments providing for its establishment. 

Roth, 64 Wn.2d at 588. 

Chapter 36.28 RCW establishes the county sheriff. The chapter outlines the duties, powers, 

functions, and limitations of the office. See RCW 36.28. 010, . 020, . 110, . 150. But nothing in the

statute demonstrates that the legislature intended to create the Pierce County Sheriff' s Department

as a legal entity, separate and distinct from the county itself, with the capacity to sue and be sued. 9

9 That is not to say that a sheriff or other member of a sheriff' s department cannot be individually

liable for acts done in his or her official capacity. See RCW 4. 16.080( 5), . 110. 

14
No. 44829 -7 -II

When asked to resolve similar questions, other courts in this state have concluded that the county

with which these departments are associated is the proper party for purposes of legal action.10

In holding that a county council is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued, 

Division One ofthis court determined that it was the intent ofthe legislature that in any legal action

involving a county, the county itself would be the party to sue or be sued. Nolan v. Snohomish

County, 59 Wn. App. 876, 883, 802 P.2d 792 ( 1990), review denied, 116 Wn.2d 1020 ( 1991). 

Similarly, in Broyles v. Thurston County, 147 Wn. App. 409, 427 -28, 195 P. 3d 985 ( 2008), we

held that Thurston County, rather than the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney' s Office, was

the proper party in an employment discrimination lawsuit." 

Furthermore, Tahraoui cites no authority and advances no argument to dispute the

contention that the sheriff' s department should be dismissed. Tahraoui merely responds that he

has already served the Pierce County Sheriff [Paul] Pastor with [a] summons and complaint and

would substitute the Defendant Pierce [ C] ounty [ S] heriff' s [ D] epartment for defendant Pierce

C] ounty [ S] heriff." Br. ofAppellant at 24. Because we are presented with no legal authority that

10 See also Worthington v. Westnet, No. 90037 -0, 2015 WL 276401, at *7 ( Wash. Jan. 22, 2015) 

Yu, J., dissenting) ( discussing several cases where counties were proper defendants when

enabling statutes of various parties did not create separate legal entities). 

11 See also Bradford v. City ofSeattle, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1207 ( W.D. Wash. 2008) ( citing

Nolan in support ofthe conclusion that a plaintiffmust name a county or city ifit seeks to challenge

the actions of a local governmental unit such as a city police department). 

15
No. 44829 -7 -II

the Pierce County Sheriff' s Department may be sued directly, it must be dismissed as a named

party to the current action.12

CONCLUSION

We reverse the dismissal of Tahraoui' s malicious prosecution claim, but affirm the trial

court' s dismissal of his abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. In

addition, we remand for dismissal of the Pierce County Sheriff's Department and further' 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered. 

We concur: 

12 Although it does not dispute that it has capacity to be sued, Pierce County nevertheless contends

that it should also be dismissed from the suit because Tahraoui has failed to establish liability on

the part of any agent or employee ofPierce County and, therefore, Pierce County is not vicariously

liable. But as we have explained, Tahraoui has alleged sufficient facts to preclude dismissal of his

malicious prosecution claim pursuant to CR 12( c). Accordingly, whether Pierce County is liable

has not been determined and, therefore, Pierce County remains a proper party to this action. 

16