HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2023 - HEX Order Granting Motion in Limine
ORDER GRANTING MOST OF MOTION IN LIMINE
PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON
IN RE:
The Home Depot
Deferral of Street Improvements:
Outlot 1 and 2
(Talbot Rd. S.)
DEF23001823 AND DEF23001824
ORDER GRANTING MOST OF
MOTION IN LIMINE
Home Depot’s September 8, 2023 is granted on most issues. All three exclusions of
evidentiary issues agreed upon by the parties are granted, specifically A, B and E as
listed at page 1 of the motion.
In regards to Issue C, out of an abundance of caution in recognition of the informalities
of local land use review, the City will be authorized one more time to contest the
findings and conclusions of the September 5, 2023 order denying dismissal1. Home
Depot’s motion in limine on Issue C will be treated as a motion for partial summary
judgment to adopt the findings and conclusions of the order denying dismissal. The
City shall have until 5 pm, October 6, 2023 to respond to the motion and Home Depot
until 5 pm October 10, 2023 to reply. It should be emphasized that this additional
response is only given in case the City believes it was not given a reasonable
opportunity to address the issues of the order denying dismissal for purposes of partial
1 The September 5, 2023 ruling was erroneously labelled as a Final Decision. As noted in the ruling itself,
material questions of fact still remained to be litigated. To prevent confusion, the September 5, 2023
decision will be referenced as the order denying dismissal.
ORDER GRANTING MOST OF MOTION IN LIMINE
PAGE 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
summary judgment in favor of Home Depot. The City is not expected or encouraged to
provide a response and a ruling will be made with or without that response. If the ruling
is made in favor of Home Depot, the findings and conclusions of the order denying
dismissal may not be collaterally attacked in the appeal hearing.
As to public records not “timely disclosed,” those will be admitted to the extent relevant
and otherwise admissible. However, Home Depot will be given additional time to
address those documents as necessary to protect its procedural due process rights.
Legal Analysis
The mutually agreed upon evidentiary issues need no further discussion as the
agreements are consistent with applicable law and equities. Home Depot’s “law of the
case” and public disclosure issues are be addressed below.
Home Depot’s “law of the case” argument, Issue C, is likely correct and should serve to
bar any collateral attack on the findings and conclusions of the Examiner’s dismissal
order. However, given the informal nature of local land use proceedings and the
absence of detailed procedural rules, it is prudent to prevent any unfair surprise or
misunderstanding to the City. For this reason, the City is given one more opportunity to
contest the findings and conclusions of the order denying dismissal in case the City did
not understand that the findings and conclusions on its motion for dismissal could be
later used to limit the issues of the appeal hearing.
The cases cited by Home Depot establish that at least in a judicial setting, interlocutory
rulings serve as the “law of the case” and cannot be collaterally attacked in later
proceedings. See Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 640, 652, 935 P.2d 555
(1997). See also Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cnty., 119 Wn.2d 91, 113, 829 P.2d
746 (1992). The City’s contention that such findings and conclusions are inappropriate
and superfluous only apply upon appellate review of a lower court for summary
judgment motions. This construction of the findings and conclusions is consistent with
the requirement that appellate review of such findings and conclusions are de novo.
At page 4 of its motion in limine response, the City takes the position that summary
judgment findings and conclusions “are superfluous and should be ignored in
subsequent proceedings.” This position renders motions for partial summary judgment
completely meaningless. The sole purpose of such motions is to resolve specified
findings and conclusions that the subsequent proceedings can be addressed more
efficiently. Clearly, nothing of the sort would be possible if the findings and
conclusions are to be ignored as advocated by the City. The City limits its position to
procedural summary judgment motions. However, there is no case law or self-evident
policy reason to make such a distinction. The advantages of resolving procedural issues
ORDER GRANTING MOST OF MOTION IN LIMINE
PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
upfront can be just as compelling as resolving substantive issues.
The City also cites to case law that findings and conclusions on summary judgment are
“inappropriate” when made by trial courts. It’s unclear why appellate courts believe
such findings to be inappropriate when made by a trial court. However, in a local land
use proceedings, such findings and conclusions are mandated by the appellate courts for
final land use decision. See Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 464 (1978). Had the
City prevailed on its motion to dismiss, not only would have findings and conclusions
have appropriate, they would have been mandated under the Parkridge case.
Despite the strength of Home Depot’s position, there are two factors that require more
leniency. First, it’s not entirely clear whether the findings and conclusions of a
summary judgment ruling are binding if the motion has been denied as opposed to
approved. Home Depot did not file a concurrent summary judgment for a mirrored
ruling in its favor. Second, CR 56 and associated case law has not been formerly
adopted into the procedural rules for City land use proceedings. Given the informal
nature of local land use proceedings, a high degree of flexibility must be exercised to
prevent unfair surprise and to ensure that parties are given a full opportunity to be
heard. The City could arguably claim surprise that in filing its motion to dismiss it was
also setting the evidentiary parameters of the appeal hearing if it lost its motion. For
this reason, to remove any doubt, Home Depot’s motion in limine regarding the
findings and conclusions of the order denying dismissal will be treated as a motion for
summary judgment with an additional opportunity for response from the City. In this
way the uncertainty associated with the absence of a positive summary judgment ruling
will be eliminated if the motion is granted in favor of Home Depot and the City will
also be given every reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
On the PRA exhibits, there is no reason to exclude them so long as Home Depot has a
reasonable opportunity to address them. As with any exhibit presented by the City, if
there is a reasonable basis to need additional time to respond significant and material
new evidence, that additional time will be granted.
Order
The motion in limine in regards to Issues A, B and E as identified at page 1 of
the motion is granted.
As to Issue C, that issue is construed as a motion for summary judgment,
specifically that Home Depot moves to have the findings and conclusions of the order
denying dismissal adopted as a partial summary judgment. The City shall have until 5
pm, October 6, 2023 to respond to the motion and Home Depot until 5 pm October 10,
2023 to reply.
ORDER GRANTING MOST OF MOTION IN LIMINE
PAGE 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
As to Issue D, the motion is denied. Exhibits will not be denied admission on
the basis that they were not timely disclosed to Home Depot. Home Depot may be
given additional time to respond to such documents as it would with any other exhibit
should Home Depot reasonably need additional time to prepare a response to new
evidence.
DATED this 2nd day of October, 2023.
___________________________
City of Renton Hearing Examiner