Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,743 chars

DIVISION II
JOSHUA BILLINGS, individually, No. 49631-3-II

Appellant,

v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TOWN OF STEILACOOM, a municipal TO PUBLISH
corporation, RONALD SCHAUB, individually,
and PAUL LOVELESS, individually,

Respondents.

Appellant, Joshua Billings, moves to publish the court’s September 26, 2017 opinion. Non-

party, MultiCare health System, Inc., also moves to publish the court’s opinion. Respondents,

Town of Steilacoom, Paul Loveless, and Ron Schaub, responded to both motions. The court has

determined that the opinion in this matter satisfies the criteria for publication. It is now

ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted and the opinion’s final paragraph reading:

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be
printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in
accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

is deleted. It is further

ORDERED that this opinion is published.

PANEL: Jj. Bjorgen, Melnick, Sutton.

FOR THE COURT:

Melnick, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two

September 26, 2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II
JOSHUA BILLINGS, individually, No. 49631-3-II

Appellant,

TOWN OF STEILACOOM, a municipal UNPUBLISHED OPINION
corporation, RONALD SCHAUP, individually,
and PAUL LOVELESS, individually,

Respondents.

MELNICK, J. — Joshua Billings appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment

to the Town of Steilacoom, Police Chief Ronald Schaub, and Town Administrator Paul Loveless,

and striking a declaration. We conclude that the trial court did not err. We affirm.

FACTS

I. BACKGROUND