Court Opinion

ID: 9898031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:56.7387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:36.838204
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

       SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE, on
       its own behalf and as representative of             No. 83632-3-I
       the class of persons deceived by unfair
       or deceptive trade acts or practices of             DIVISION ONE
       defendant,
                                                           PUBLISHED OPINION
                              Appellant,

                      v.

       CITY OF SEATTLE,

                              Respondent.

              MANN, J. — The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (Tribe) sued the City of Seattle over

       the City’s hydroelectric project on the Skagit River. The Tribe claimed that the City’s

       promotional campaign alleging that the hydroelectric project produced “green” power

       was deceptive and violated the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.86 RCW.

       The Tribe also claimed that the City’s actions created a private and public nuisance

       interfering with the Tribe’s use and enjoyment of its property right to fish on the Skagit

       River. The Tribe appeals the trial court’s decision dismissing its complaint under CR

       12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim for relief.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/2

               We affirm dismissal of the Tribe’s claims under the CPA and its claim for

       nuisance per se. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the Tribe’s public

       and private nuisance claims.

                                                           I.

               The City, through Seattle City Light, owns and operates the 711 megawatt Skagit

       River Hydroelectric Project (Skagit project). The Skagit project consists of three large

       hydroelectric dams (Gorge, Diablo, and Ross) on the main stem of the Skagit River. 1

       The Skagit project was constructed beginning in or about 1917.

               In 1927, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) predecessor, the

       Federal Power Commission, licensed the Skagit project for 50 years. In 1995, FERC

       issued a new license authorizing the City’s operation of the Skagit project for another 30

       years. The 1995 license expires in 2025. FERC has already begun the relicensing

       process.

               According to the Tribe, the Skagit project blocks approximately 37 percent of the

       Skagit River to upstream and downstream fish passage. There are no fish passage

       facilities at the Skagit project, unlike virtually every other hydroelectric operator in the

       Pacific Northwest.

               In 2003, the City applied for and was granted certification for the Skagit project

       from the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI), a federal 501(c)(3) nonprofit

       organization. 2 LIHI is the principal “green power” certifying agency in the United States.

       LIHI certification affords hydroelectric operators immense economic and other benefits,

               1 The facts are derived largely from the Tribe’s first amended complaint. Because this matter is

       before us on a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), we assume the truth of the allegations in the
       complaint. Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 120, 744 P.2d 1032 (1987).
               2 26 U.S. Code § 501(c)(3).

                                                        -2-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/3

       including significant public trust and confidence in the environmental values and ethos

       of the hydroelectric operator. Upon approval by LIHI, the Skagit project became the

       largest LIHI low impact certified hydroelectric project in the nation. LIHI low impact

       certification for the Skagit project was renewed in 2017.

              Since receiving its LIHI low impact certification, the City has publicly

       communicated and advertised an extensive level of environmental claims about the

       Skagit project. The City has adopted its brand and public slogan as the “Nation’s

       Greenest Utility.” The City displays logos and claims to that effect on websites,

       materials, and presentations intended for marketing and public consumption. For

       example, the City’s “powerlines blog” contains logos stating, “Green Power to the

       People,” and “City Light is the Nation’s Greenest Utility.”

              The Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe whose homeland is within the

       Skagit River Basin. The Tribe consists of tribal citizens who rely on cultural and natural

       resources within the Skagit River ecosystem. The Tribe has hunted and fished in the

       Skagit River Basin as the basis for its economy and culture for at least 8,000 years —

       since Time Immemorial.

              In September 2021, the Tribe sued the City in King County Superior Court over

       the City’s claims about the Skagit project. The Tribe amended its complaint in

       November 2021. The amended complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief and

       alleged violations of the CPA and private and public nuisance. The amended complaint

       sought class certification on behalf of Tribe members.

                                                  -3-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/4

               The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint under CR 12(b)(6) for failing

       to state a claim for relief. 3 After briefing and oral argument, the trial court granted the

       City’s motion and dismissed the Tribe’s amended complaint with prejudice.

               The Tribe appeals.

                                                            II.

               We review a trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6)

       de novo. Wash. Trucking Ass’n v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 188 Wn.2d 198, 207, 393 P.3d 761

       (2017). “A CR 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a

       complaint.” McAfee v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 193 Wn. App. 220, 226, 370 P.3d

       25 (2016). Granting a motion to dismiss is “appropriate only when it appears beyond

       doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would justify recovery.” Wash.

       Trucking, 188 Wn.2d at 207. The facts alleged in the complaint are presumed true,

       however, the court need not accept the legal conclusions as true. Haberman v. Wash.

       Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 120, 744 P.2d 1032 (1987). 4

                                                            A.

               The Tribe argues that the City’s statements about the Skagit project amount to

       “greenwashing” in violation of Washington’s CPA. The City responds that, as a

       municipality, it is not subject to the CPA. We agree with the City.

               The CPA declares that “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive

       acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. RCW

                 3 The City moved to dismiss the Tribe’s initial complaint but withdrew that motion after the Tribe

       filed its amended complaint.
                 4 The City also moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CR 12(b)(1) claiming

       any challenges to the City’s FERC license were preempted by federal law. Because the trial court
       dismissed all the claims under CR 12(b)(6), we do not address the City’s claim under CR 12(b)(1).

                                                         -4-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/5

       19.86.020. The CPA provides for a private right of action allowing “any person” injured

       in their business or property by a violation of the act to bring a civil action for damages

       and injunctive relief. RCW 19.86.090; Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco

       Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 784, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). The CPA defines “person” to

       include “natural persons, corporations, trusts, unincorporated associations, and

       partnerships.” RCW 19.86.010.

              In Wash. Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, 77 Wn.2d

       94, 97, 459 P.2d 633 (1969), our Supreme Court held that a public utility district, which

       is a municipal corporation, was not subject to the CPA because municipal corporations

       were “exempt . . . from the operation but not the benefits of the [CPA].” In reasoning,

       the court explained that “[b]y its very terms, that act, RCW 19.86, includes only natural

       persons, corporations, trusts, unincorporated associations and partnerships.” RCW

       19.86.010; Wash. Nat. Gas, 77 Wn.2d at 98 (internal quotations omitted). The

       language does not imply that municipal corporations or political subdivisions are within

       the definition of persons and entities subject to the CPA. Wash. Nat. Gas, 77 Wn.2d at

       98. The Supreme Court reiterated this holding in Haberman, where it concluded that

       because irrigation districts were municipal corporations they were exempt from the

       CPA. 109 Wn.2d at 170-71 (citing Wash. Nat. Gas, 77 Wn.2d at 98). 5

              5 The Tribe argues that we should ignore Wash. Nat. Gas. and Haberman based on RCW

       19.86.920, which instructs courts construing the CPA be guided by final decisions of federal courts
       construing federal laws governing restraint of trade and unfair competition. The Tribe contends that
       because federal courts construing the similar federal Sherman and Clayton Acts have held that “persons”
       includes municipal corporations, we should also. Because our Supreme Court has at least twice
       confirmed that the plain language of RCW 19.86.010 exempts municipal corporations, we decline the
       Tribe’s invitation.

                                                      -5-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/6

              Because the City, as a municipal corporation, is exempt from the CPA the trial

       court did not err in dismissing the Tribe’s CPA claims.

                                                    B.

              The Tribe argues next that the trial court erred by dismissing its nuisance claims.

       We agree in part.

              A nuisance in Washington is defined broadly by statute:

              Nuisance consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty,
              which act or omission either annoys, injures or endangers the comfort,
              repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully
              interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for
              passage, any lake or navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or any
              public park, square, street or highway; or in any way renders other
              persons insecure in life, or in the use of property.

       RCW 7.48.120. Despite this broad definition, “generally, an activity is a nuisance only

       when it ‘interferes unreasonably with other persons’ use and enjoyment of their

       property.’” Moore v. Steve’s Outboard Serv., 182 Wn.2d 151, 155, 339 P.3d 169 (2014)

       (quoting Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wn.2d 1, 13, 954 P.2d 877 (1998)).

                                                    1.

              The Tribe argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim for nuisance per

       se. We disagree.

              A nuisance per se “is an act, thing, omission, or use of property which of itself is

       a nuisance, and hence is not permissible or excusable under any circumstance.” Tiegs,

       135 Wn.2d at 13. A nuisance per se can be established by citing a statute that prohibits

       conduct at all times and under all circumstances. Moore, 182 Wn.2d at 156-57.

              The Tribe argues that the City’s conduct violates RCW 9.04.010, which makes

       false advertising a crime:

                                                 -6-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/7

              Any person, firm, corporation or association who, with intent to sell or in
              any wise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered
              by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to
              the public for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the
              consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into
              any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or an interest
              therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the
              public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published,
              disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public in this state, in a
              newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, hand-bill,
              poster, bill, circular, pamphlet, or letter, or in any other way, an
              advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or
              anything so offered to the public, which advertisement contains any
              assertion, representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or
              misleading, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

       RCW 9.04.010 (emphasis added). In essence, and most relevant here, RCW 9.04.010

       makes it to illegal to advertise using untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements, with

       intent to sell or increase consumption of a service.

              Certainly the Tribe’s amended complaint makes many allegations that the City’s

       environmental claims—statements about being the “Nation’s Greenest Utility,” and

       claims that it has improved the conditions of the Skagit anadromous species—are

       untrue, deceptive, or false. We assume the Tribe’s allegations are true. Even so, the

       Tribe’s amended complaint fails to allege or explain how the City is using these

       statements with an intent to either sell more power or increase the consumption of

       power. Instead, we agree with the trial court that the City’s claims appear to be “mere

       puffery.” General, subjective, unverifiable claims about a product or service are “mere

       puffery” and cannot give rise to a false advertising claim. See Newcal Indus., Inc. v.

       Ikon Office Sols., 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008).

              The trial court did not err in dismissing the Tribe’s nuisance per se claim.

                                                    2.

                                                 -7-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/8

              An ordinary private nuisance action requires the plaintiff to show that the

       defendant’s conduct caused substantial and unreasonable interference with the

       plaintiff’s property interest. Moore, 182 Wn.2d at 156-57; Tiegs, 135 Wn.2d at 13-14. A

       public nuisance requires either a violation of one of the statutorily enumerated public

       nuisances in RCW 7.48.140, or for the plaintiff to show that the nuisance activity “affects

       equally the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of the

       damage may be unequal.” Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc., 106 Wn.2d 135, 139, 720 P.2d

       818 (1986); RCW 7.48.130.

              The Tribe argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its nuisance claims

       under CR 12(b)(6) because it failed to allege that the City’s actions were the proximate

       cause of the Tribe’s harm. We agree.

              The Tribe argues that when clear factual allegations are made, proximate

       causation is a matter for the jury. Bernethy v. Walt Failor’s Inc., 97 Wn.2d 929, 935,

       653 P.2d 280 (1982). We agree that whether the element of proximate causation is

       satisfied is generally a question for the jury. But in reviewing a dismissal under CR

       12(b)(6), we must determine whether the Tribe sufficiently alleged proximate causation

       in its complaint based on the presumption that the alleged facts are true.

              In its complaint, the Tribe alleged:

              2.41 Seattle’s misrepresentation of the state of Skagit anadromous
              species while concurrently taking credit for non-existent improvement has
              wrongfully shifted blame from Seattle to the Plaintiff and other Skagit
              Treaty Tribes, who, despite catching a mere handful of salmon and
              steelhead pursuant to the Treaty each year due to Skagit anadromous
              species’ degraded condition, are, due to the resultant public misperception
              of the causes of species decline, frequently the target of public ire,
              harassment, and vandalism. As such, Seattle’s “greenwashing”, by
              wrongfully transferring culpability for anadromous species degradation

                                                     -8-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/9

              onto the Plaintiff and its members, directly interferes with the right to quiet
              enjoyment of Plaintiff’s Treaty-grounded property right in the lands and
              waters of the Skagit, and harms the Plaintiff community.

              The Tribe explained that the harm is not limited to animus from local persons, but

       also that its brand and reputation associated with the fishery resource is broadly

       connected to public perception and reputation of the Skagit for sustainable fisheries:

              2.35 Plaintiff Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe participates in commercial
              fishery, as well as hunting and gathering in the Skagit ecosystem, with its
              tribal reputation and brand inherently connected to public perception and
              reputation of the health, environmental responsibility and sustainability of
              the Skagit ecosystem, including the viability of its species and the
              management of the river system by major actors such as Defendant
              Seattle.

              And the Tribe explained that the conduct was both a private and public nuisance:

              3.8     Defendant Seattle’s actions set forth herein constitute an
              unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of Plaintiff’s
              rights in property, land and waters, causing harm to Plaintiff.

              3.11 Defendant Seattle’s actions set forth herein constitute an
              unreasonable interference with the rights of a community, special harm
              arising from which injures the Plaintiff and its constituent members.

              The Tribe is arguing that the City’s greenwashing statements undermine the

       Tribe’s valuable property interest in the fishery resources and their right to its quiet

       enjoyment by misrepresentations that cause animus in the form of harassment, and

       diminished support of the Tribe through public opinion. 6 While it is true that proximate

       cause can be severed by the intervening acts of third parties, that is a factual question

       not fit for dismissal under CR 12(b)(6). The Tribe sufficiently alleged a causal

       connection between the City’s statements and its own harm. Assuming the facts

              6 The City disputes that the Tribe has a property interest in fishing on the Skagit River.
                                                                                                     We are
       reviewing dismissal of the Tribe’s complaint under CR 12(b)(6) and therefore assume that the Tribe’s
       claim of a property right is true.

                                                        -9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 83632-3-I/10

       alleged in the complaint are true, the Tribe sufficiently alleged a claim for private and

       public nuisance.

              We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the Tribe’s public and private

       nuisance claims. We otherwise affirm.

       WE CONCUR:

                                                 -10-