Court Opinion

ID: 3185295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-14 20:54:05.820621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:02.210922
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

LEENDERS        DRYWALL,     INC.;  and
DAVID J. LEENDERS, individually and         No. 72595-5-1
on behalf of his marital community,
                                            DIVISION ONE
                    Respondents,
      v.

ADRIAN AYALA, individually and on
behalf of      his    marital community;    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHRISTIAN BARRUETA, individually
and on behalf of his marital community;
JOAQUIN CADENA, individually and on
behalf of      his    marital community;
LEONEL CASTANEDA, individually and          FILED: March 14, 2016
on behalf of his marital community;
FIDEL CASTRO, individually and on                                            o
                                                                           too
behalf of      his    marital community;
                                                                           T>,73
ABRAHAM JIMINEZ ARCE, individually                                  ZX.    m
and on behalf of his marital community;                                         o

                                                                               n. "-T,
GABRIEL LARIOS, individually and on
behalf of his marital community; RAFAEL
LARIOS, individually and on half of his                              5
marital community; CRUZ LAUREANO,                                    CD
                                                                               —183 Wash. 2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015).
No. 72595-5-1 / 3

allowed a trial court to resolve disputed factual matters and decide the merits of a

plaintiff's claim without a trial.3 Leenders's supplemental briefing asked this court

to dismiss Ayala's appeal on this basis.

      Ayala acknowledges the unconstitutionality of RCW 4.24.525.              But in

supplemental briefing, Ayala claims that RCW 4.24.5104 standing alone provides

an independent basis for this court to dismiss Leenders's lawsuit. That statute

provides immunity from civil suits based on a defendant's communications with

government entities "regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency

or organization."5 But Ayala asserted both in his motion to strike and in his

opening brief to this court that he was entitled to dismissal because Leenders

could not meet the "clear and convincing" evidence requirement of RCW

4.24.525(4)(b) to defeat Ayala's asserted immunity under RCW 4.24.510.

Ayala's argument both to the trial court and to this court regarding RCW 4.24.510

thus assumed RCW4.24.525's constitutionality.

       For the first time in a supplemental brief, Ayala asserts that he is entitled

to dismissal as a matter of law under RCW 4.24.510, independent of RCW

4.24.525. This court generally will not review a claim not raised in the trial court.6

We decline to do so in this case.

       3 Davis, 183 Wash. 2d at 288-96.
       4 In its briefing, Ayala inadvertently cites to RCW 4.25.510 but refers to the
language of RCW 4.24.510.
       5 RCW 4.24.510.
       6 RAP 2.5(a).
No. 72595-5-1/4

                                   Conclusion

       We dismiss Ayala's appeal and remand to the trial court for proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

                                                   J^ifr, /.
WE CONCUR: