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

1,788 chars

Billings violated the department’s policy against unsatisfactory performance based on tactics used,

nor was Billings terminated for using excessive force. However, the arbitrator found that Billings

violated the department’s policy for his using unsafe tactics in the stop, not for the use of force.

The trial court granted the motion to strike Carpenter’s declaration.

Billings filed a motion to amend his complaint to add a cause of action for First Amendment

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the motion.

The trial court granted Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless’s motion for summary judgment

and dismissal of all the claims. Billings appeals.

ANALYSIS

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Billings argues that the trial court erred by granting Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless’s

motion for summary judgment because his claims were not barred by collateral estoppel. He also

argues that collateral estoppel should not be applied to an unreviewable, labor arbitration decision.

We disagree with Billings and conclude that collateral estoppel bars all of Billings’s state

law claims. We need not decide whether his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is precluded by collateral

estoppel. Because there exists no genuine issue of material fact, the court properly granted

summary judgment.

6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material facts, and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); McGowan v. State, 148

Wn.2d 278, 289, 60 P.3d 67 (2002). The appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial

court, with questions of law reviewed de novo and the facts and all reasonable inferences from the