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

1,786 chars

3
Billings does not cite to any legal authority to support his contention that it should preclude the
application of collateral estoppel. RAP 10.3(a)(6) directs each party to supply in its brief,
“argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority
and references to relevant parts of the record.” We do “not consider conclusory arguments that
are unsupported by citation to authority.” Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850, 876,
316 P.3d 520 (2013). “Passing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient
to merit judicial consideration.” Brownfield, 178 Wn. App. at 876. Accordingly, we need not
consider this argument.

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

Accordingly, we conclude that applying collateral estoppel in this case would not cause an

injustice against Billings because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues Steilacoom,

Schaub, and Loveless argue are precluded.

E. IDENTICAL ISSUES

Billings argues that the issues are not identical, but he does not provide clear, substantive

argument why they are not identical.

Steilacoom, Schaub, and Loveless argue that all of the issues are identical because the

arbitrator found just cause to terminate Billings, and each of the claims asserted by Billings require

a determination of whether just cause existed. In addition, they argue that because the arbitrator

found just cause, each of the claims asserted by Billings fails as a matter of law. Finally, they

argue that Billings failed to respond to the substance of application of collateral estoppel or provide

support for his claims related to his public policy wrongful discharge claim or his First Amendment