Court Opinion

ID: 9901074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 22:12:50.221587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.442312
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON
                                                           No. 84875-5-I
                        Appellant,
                                                           DIVISION ONE
                v.
                                                           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.,

                        Respondent.

        HAZELRIGG, A.C.J. — Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals from the dismissal

of her claims against Spirit Airlines. Because she did not present any recoverable

civil causes of action and only presented criminal allegations in her complaint,

dismissal of her suit was appropriate. Robinson also fails to establish an abuse of

discretion by the trial court in its denial of her request for leave to file a third

amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.

                                            FACTS 1

        On October 18, 2022, Robinson had a plane ticket for a Spirit Airlines flight

from Seattle to Los Angeles that was scheduled to depart at 6:37 a.m. At the Spirit

check-in counter, an employee of the airline worked with Robinson to address an

        1 Spirit Airlines’ motion to dismiss was granted pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) which requires the

court presume the facts alleged in the complaint are true. Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842,
154 P.3d 206 (2007). While Robinson does not provide a facts section in her briefing before this
court, Spirit properly acknowledges her accounting of the facts as set out in her complaint without
conceding their truth.
        Following the procedural posture of CR 12(b)(6), we similarly set out the facts here as they
are presented in Robinson’s complaint and presume them to be true for purposes of our review.
No. 84875-5-I/2

issue with her checked bag which exceeded the weight limit and, once that was

resolved, advised Robinson that her carry-on items would need to either be

condensed or placed into checked baggage for the flight. In an effort to reduce the

weight of her luggage and condense her carry-on items, Robinson resorted to

throwing away personal items, including electronics, clothing, blankets, and hair

care products. She was issued a boarding pass at 5:47 a.m. 2 Boarding for the

flight began 5 minutes later at 5:52 a.m. and, after being delayed in the line for

security screening, Robinson missed the flight. Soon thereafter, Robinson filed

suit against Spirit in King County Superior Court. 3 In her complaint, Robinson

alleged criminal recklessness by Spirit and sought monetary damages. 4 Spirit

moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

pursuant to CR 12(b)(6), and argued that the criminal allegations Robinson raised

were not applicable in a civil claim for damages.

        On November 14, 2022, Robinson filed a response to Spirit’s motion to

dismiss along with an amended complaint. The amended complaint added “Theft

in the First Degree RCW 9A.56.030,” a class B felony, to the causes of action. On

December 27, 2022, Spirit filed a reply to Robinson’s response and, that same

         2 Robinson refers to the document issued at the Spirit counter as a “ticket” and Spirit adopts

that same terminology, but the item in the photograph attached as an exhibit to her response to the
motion to dismiss is a boarding pass in her name for a Spirit Airlines flight that matches the date,
departure and boarding times set out in her complaint.
         It is unclear from the record before us when Robinson purchased the ticket for the flight at
issue.
         3 Robinson’s amended complaint and second amended complaint are provided in the

record on appeal, but her original complaint was not transmitted to this court, so the precise filing
date of the initial complaint is unknown to us. However, the court noted in its dismissal order that
Robinson “decided to file her [c]omplaint within hours of the events that form the basis of her claims”
and the record establishes that the first amended complaint was filed on November 15, 2022, just
under one month after the events giving rise to the suit.
         4 Again, the original complaint was not transmitted to this court. However, Spirit’s motion

to dismiss identifies this as the nature of Robinson’s sole claim at that point in the proceedings.

                                                -2-
No. 84875-5-I/3

day, Robinson filed a second amended complaint that removed theft in the first

degree from the causes of action and added “complicity,” citing RCW 9A.08.020. 5

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on January 6, 2023 and both parties

presented argument. 6 Three days later, the court issued its ruling and dismissed

the case. The court also denied Robinson’s oral motion for leave to amend her

complaint, finding that she had “already amended her [c]omplaint twice” and the

“amendments still failed to contain a claim upon which relief could be granted.” It

explained that the denial was based on the conclusion that the motion to amend

her complaint a third time would be futile as Robinson “could not identify any claim

or allegations she would add or change.”

        Robinson appealed. 7

                                           ANALYSIS

I.      Compliance with Rules of Appellate Procedure

        As a preliminary matter, Spirit argues that Robinson’s brief is both untimely

and noncompliant with the Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) and asks this court

to impose sanctions on that basis.              Since Robinson did not file a report of

proceedings with this court, her brief should have been filed “within 45 days after

. . . fil[ing] the designation of clerk’s papers and exhibits in the trial court.”

RAP 10.2(a). She initially filed the designation of clerk’s papers on February 9,

        5 While Robinson removed theft in the first degree from the causes of action set out in her

complaint, she reiterated that allegation in her response to Spirit’s motion to dismiss.
        6 Robinson did not designate the report of proceedings from that hearing as part of the

record on appeal. However, the court’s ruling refers to oral argument on the motion and the parties’
respective briefing establishes that both Robinson and counsel for Spirit were present and heard
by the court.
        7 Robinson twice amended her notice of appeal. The second amended notice of appeal,

received on February 13, 2023, controls here.

                                               -3-
No. 84875-5-I/4

2023, but then filed an amended designation of clerk’s papers on February 14; the

latter filing date established March 31, 2023 as the due date for her opening brief

under RAP 10.2(a). However, Robinson also filed a statement of arrangements

on May 1, 2023 wherein she indicated that she had ordered a transcript of the

January 6, 2023 hearing. She then filed an amended statement of arrangements

on May 2, and a second amended statement of arrangements on May 3 both of

which indicated she would not be ordering a transcript of the hearing after all.

Using the filing date of the second amended statement of arrangements for the

calculation of time under RAP 10.2(a) results in a June 17 due date for her opening

brief. Under RCW 1.12.040, that date is adjusted to June 20 as June 17 fell on a

weekend followed by a Monday holiday. As Robinson’s opening brief was filed on

July 11, 2023, it is untimely under either method of calculation. 8

        Robinson’s amended opening brief also fails to comply with RAP 10.3(a),

which requires a table of contents, assignments of error, statement of the case,

and argument. RAP 10.3(a)(2), (4)-(6). Although the brief lists the labels of those

requirements, the substance of the requirements was not met. 9 Robinson fails to

apply the rule she presents, CR 12(b)(7), to the facts of her case; no facts from the

         8 Robinson’s opening brief was rejected by the clerk of this court as noncompliant with the

RAPs. Robinson later filed an amended opening brief and a commissioner ruled as follows:
         Appellant’s amended opening brief is accepted as filed on July 19, 2023 with the
         understanding that the panel assigned to decide the appeal has the authority to
         determine whether any substantive and/or technical deficiencies will prevent
         consideration of the merits.
         9 The “Tables” section does not have a table of alphabetically arranged cases or statutes

with references to page numbers; the “Assignments of Error” is phrased in a manner which does
not clearly put Spirit or this court on notice of the challenges presented on appeal (“Trial court erred
evidence of any material fact to dismiss case upon defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil
Rule 12(b)(6) and (7).”); the “Statement of the Case” does not include a “fair statement of the facts
and procedure relevant to the issues;” and the “Argument” is purely a recitation of legal rules without
application to the circumstances of her case or the “standard of review as to each issue.” RAP
10.3(a)(2), (4)-(6).

                                                 -4-
No. 84875-5-I/5

trial court are cited at all. While she argues that the motion should have been

converted to one for summary judgment and does cite CR 56 in her brief, she fails

to engage with the standard set out by that rule.

       “[P]ro se litigants are bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive

laws as attorneys.” Westberg v. All-Purpose Structures, Inc., 86 Wn. App. 405,

411, 936 P.2d 1175 (1997). Robinson’s noncompliance with the RAPs, particularly

the failure to reference the record, limits the ability of this court to consider each

challenge she presents.        However, we decline Spirit’s invitation to impose

sanctions on Robinson under RAP 18.9 based on timeliness and other issues of

noncompliance with the RAPs because her briefing was ultimately accepted by a

commissioner and provided sufficient information that Spirit was able to respond.

II.    Termination of Suit by Pretrial Motion

       A. CR 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

       Robinson asserts that the trial court improperly ruled on Spirit’s CR 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and

was instead required to consider the motion as a request for summary judgment

dismissal under CR 56. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss

under CR 12(b)(6). Jackson v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 186 Wn. App. 838, 843,

347 P.3d 487 (2015). “Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate in those cases

where the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts consistent with the complaint that

would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id. Under CR 12(b)(6), all facts in the plaintiff’s

complaint are presumed to be true, but the legal conclusions are not required to

be accepted. Id. In other words, “[i]f a plaintiff’s claim remains legally insufficient

                                           -5-
No. 84875-5-I/6

even under [their] proffered hypothetical facts, dismissal pursuant to CR 12(b)(6)

is appropriate.” Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wn.2d 198, 215, 118 P.3d 311

(2005).

        Each version of Robinson’s complaint references only criminal law concepts

with no causes of action that support civil recovery. It is well established that “all

criminal prosecutions must be brought in the State’s name and by the State’s

authority.” Protect the Peninsula’s Future v. City of Port Angeles, 175 Wn. App.

201, 213, 304 P.3d 914 (2013) (citing W ASH. CONST. art. IV, § 27)). More critically,

RCW 9A.08.010(c), which Robinson references for her cause of action in

“recklessness,” defines the requirements to determine criminal culpability, and

RCW 9A.08.020, which she references for “complicity,” explains the framework of

the legal theory for accomplice liability used by the State to seek convictions for

criminal actors who may not have directly committed the alleged crime. These two

concepts Robinson identifies as her causes of actions are not standalone crimes

but key aspects of criminal practice in our State. Accordingly, even presuming the

facts in her second amended complaint to be true, Robinson identified no cause

of action by which she could recover under its plain language and the trial court

did not err when it granted Spirit’s motion to dismiss.

        B. CR 56 Motion for Summary Judgment

        Robinson also cites CR 12(b)(7) 10 and repeatedly asserts that Spirit’s

motion to dismiss should have been converted to one for summary judgment.

        10 Although Robinson references CR 12(b)(7), she uses language from the rule that is not

a part of provision (7), but follows it. For example, in Appellant’s Br. at 6, Robinson references CR
12(b)(7) but the quote provided is “. . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not

                                                -6-
No. 84875-5-I/7

CR 12(b) establishes certain defenses that may be made by motion and further

notes that when the court considers matters outside the record on a motion to

dismiss under 12(b)(6), “the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment

and disposed of as provided in rule 56.” Under the plain language of that rule, a

motion for summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if

any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c). That is to say, “[i]f

materials outside of the pleadings are considered, the CR 12(b)(6) motion is

treated as a summary judgment motion under CR 56.” Berst v. Snohomish County,

114 Wn. App. 245, 251, 57 P.3d 273 (2002).

        In this case, the trial court granted Spirit’s motion to dismiss after reviewing

the following pleadings only: Spirit’s CR 12(b)(6) motion, Robinson’s first amended

complaint and response in opposition to the CR 12(b)(6) motion, Spirit’s

subsequent reply, and Robinson’s second amended complaint.                           In her brief,

Robinson argues that “the trial court considered oral argument outside of the

pleadings,” but provides no explanation or reference to what oral argument she is

referring. (Capitalization omitted.) The ruling on the motion clearly delineates the

information upon which the court based its decision. As Robinson did not provide

the report of proceedings to this court, we are unable to independently determine

if either party requested consideration of additional facts outside of those

excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment,” which is part of
the section in the rule that is subsequent to (7). The formatting of the rule online, as opposed to
that in the bound volumes of court rules makes it difficult to determine where (7) ends. Accordingly,
we address the substance of her argument despite the inaccurate subsection reference.

                                                -7-
No. 84875-5-I/8

pleadings. In the absence of sufficient argument in support of this assertion,

Robinson fails to demonstrate error on this basis. 11

III.    Denial of Motion To Amend Complaint

        Without a formal assignment of error, Robinson next argues that the trial

court erred when it denied her request to amend her complaint for a third time.

Although CR 15 provides that a party is entitled to amend their complaint “once as

a matter of course,” the language of the rule makes it clear that further

amendments are at the court’s discretion. CR 15(a) (“Otherwise, a party may

amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court.”). A court must give leave for a

party to amend their complaint “when justice so requires.” Id. “The standard of

review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to amend pleadings is abuse of

discretion.” Bank of Am. NT & SA v. David W. Hubert, PC, 153 Wn.2d 102, 122,

101 P.3d 409 (2004). “A judge abuses [their] discretion when no reasonable judge

would have reached the same conclusion.” State v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns

Mgmt., LLC, 16 Wn. App. 2d 664, 676, 482 P.3d 925 (2021). Robinson initiated

this case with her complaint and amended it twice before the hearing on the motion

to dismiss. In making her request during the hearing for leave to again amend her

complaint, she “failed to identify any” claims that she would add or change in a

        11 Robinson also claims several times in her briefing that her due process rights were

violated. However, the record establishes that she received notice of Spirit’s CR 12(b)(6) motion
as she not only filed a response, but also amended her complaint for the second time. The record
further demonstrates that she was present at the hearing and had an opportunity to be heard on
the motion as it was during that hearing that she orally requested leave to file a third amended
complaint.
         As she fails to identify what additional process she was due, how it was denied, or
otherwise engage with the proper legal standard by which to analyze this challenge, we decline to
consider it further.

                                              -8-
No. 84875-5-I/9

third amended complaint and she identifies none on appeal.                 She fails to

demonstrate that no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion

based on the facts and record before the trial court. The court did not abuse its

discretion when it denied her request to file a third amended complaint.

IV.    Attorney Fees

       Spirit asserts Robinson’s appeal is frivolous and also seeks attorney fees

on that basis under RAP 18.9(a). The rule expressly permits this court to award

attorney fees as a sanction when it deems an appeal frivolous. “An appeal is

frivolous when, considering the entire record, it ‘presents no debatable issues upon

which reasonable minds might differ’ and ‘is so devoid of merit that there is no

possibility of reversal.’” Hays Elliott Props., LLC v. Horner, 25 Wn. App. 2d 868,

876-77, 528 P.3d 827 (2023) (quoting Advocs. for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash.

Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577, 580, 245 P.3d 764 (2010)). While

Robinson does not prevail, her appeal was not devoid of merit such that it was

frivolous. We decline Spirit’s request for fees on this alternate basis.

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

                                        -9-