Bellevue resident Anna Danieli is the case plaintiff and owner of the family cat, Miska.
Case defendants are King County; City of Bellevue; the King County Hearing Examiner; Regional Animal Services of King County (RASKC) Gene Mueller, a Bellevue neighbor complainant and RASKC Manager; and Tim Anderson, the Lead Field Sergeant for RASKC.
The plaintiff has brought a motion for partial summary judgment (that is, she is asking the court to make a pre-trial ruling relating to specific legal issues present in the case). She has requested declaratory and injunctive relief, which means she has asked the court to make a decision about the current state of the law, and to direct the defendants to stop taking certain actions against her.
The plaintiff asserts the Hearing Examiner lacked jurisdiction to hear animal enforcement cases originating from the City of Bellevue because the Bellevue City Code lacks any enabling language to authorize the King County Hearing Examiner to rule on animal enforcement cases originating from the City of Bellevue.
As a result, the plaintiff asserts that the cases originating from the City of Bellevue and brought before the King County Hearing Examiner are void and she requests that the Court enjoin the King County Hearing Examiner from hearing any of the animal enforcement cases RASKC filed against her.
The plaintiff has requested that the court vacate animal enforcement notices against her cat Miska and enjoin the King County Hearing Examiner from hearing RASKC enforcement cases from Bellevue.
Pierce County Superior Court will hear the case’s oral argument at 9 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 23, 2020. The court venue is at 930 Tacoma Ave. S., Room 123, in Tacoma.
The case number is 19-2-07054-0
The judge in this case is Judge Bryan Chushcoff.
In her motion, the Plaintiff is not seeking money damages; rather, the plaintiff is seeking an equitable remedy for declaratory and injunctive relief for which she pleaded in her Amended Complaint. The current motion only addresses the narrow legal question of whether the King County Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction and legal authority to hear animal enforcement cases from Bellevue.
- Is Danieli entitled to equitable relief because Bellevue failed to properly confer jurisdiction on the King County Hearing Examiner to hear Bellevue animal enforcement cases?
- Did the King County Hearing Examiner act without proper authority in hearing animal enforcement cases arising from the City of Bellevue?
- Should any of the actions taken by the Regional Animal Services of King County (RASKC) and the King County Hearing Examiner against Danieli related to the city’s animal enforcement cases be voided?
- Where is the proper venue to hear animal enforcement cases from Bellevue?
- Should King County, the City of Bellevue, and all of their governmental agents be prohibited from putting Bellevue animal enforcement cases before the King County Hearing Examiner unless and until the Bellevue enacts and codifies an ordinance authorizing the King County Hearing Examiner to hear such cases?
- Should the King County Hearing Examiner be enjoined from hearing Bellevue animal enforcement cases until the City of Bellevue enacts and codifies an ordinance authorizing the King County Hearing Examiner to hearing Bellevue’s cases?
- In 2010, the City of Bellevue created an ordinance to have animal enforcement cases heard by the King County Board of Appeals.
- In 2012, the City of Bellevue and King County entered into an Animal Services contract, also known as an Interlocal Agreement (ILA), for animal services beginning in 2013 and continuing through 2015. This ILA included enforcement cases.
- At that time, the City of Bellevue authorized the King County Board of Appeals to hear appeals by parties objecting to actions by RASKC that involved animal code enforcement proceedings initiated by or on behalf of the City of Bellevue.
- Bellevue City Code (“BCC”) designates the King County Board of Appeals as the venue for anyone cited in Bellevue to appeal any animal enforcement notice or order. BCC 8.04.350.
- In 2015, the City of Bellevue and King County renewed the 2012 ILA for the period 2016 to 2017. Other than the time period of the agreement, there was no substantive change to the terms of the 2012 ILA’s provisions for animal enforcement appeals in the earlier 2015 ILA.
- Section 3, titled “City Obligations,” reads that the 2012 ILA provide that the City of Bellevue authorizes King County to enforce the terms of Bellevue’s city ordinance, including the power to issue enforcement notices and orders, and to conduct administrative appeals of county enforcement actions taken on behalf of the City of Bellevue.
- Section 3 reads, in part: “Such appeals shall be considered by the King County Board of Appeals unless either the City [of Bellevue] or the County determines that the particular matter should be heard by the City [of Bellevue].”
- The section also rejects any exclusive diversion of enforcement actions to King County.
- In 2016, the King County Council passed a new county ordinance in which the King County Council removed the authority of the King County Board of Appeals to hear animal enforcement cases. King County then delegated that authority to the King County Hearing Examiner.
- Around July and August 2017, the City and County entered into a new Animal Services Interlocal Agreement for the period of 2018 through 2022 (the 2017 ILA). However, in this version of the contract, a significant change was made in the 2017 ILA: In the language of the agreement, Bellevue agreed to authorize the King County to conduct administrative appeals of county enforcement actions taken on behalf of the City of Bellevue by having such appeals heard by the King County Hearing Examiner.
- The language of the 2017 ILA recognized a requirement by the City of Bellevue to change its city code in order to effectuate numerous 2017 ILA provisions. Despite that requirement, the Bellevue City Code provision as to the venue to hear animal enforcement appeals remains unchanged since 2010. At no time relevant to this case did the City of Bellevue amend its ordinance, and the city code does not contain any provision authorizing the King County Hearing Examiner to hear appeals of RASKC animal enforcement decisions.
- Since that time, the Government Defendants have issued infractions against Danieli, her cat Miska, and other Bellevue pet owners while the Government Defendants have failed to follow the law.