Constitutional/Adult Entertainment

• Thorsted v. Gregoire, 841 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D. Wa. 1994). Steve was lead counsel for plaintiffs (including House Speaker Thomas Foley and the League of Women Voters), who challenged the constitutionality of Washington's term limits law. Included among the issues was whether the law violates Article I, 2, 3 of the U.S. Constitution (the Qualifications Clauses), or the 1st and 14th Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on all constitutional grounds, and that decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• Card v. City of Everett, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Wa. 2005), affirmed, 520 F. 3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff challenged the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on public property. The monument had been donated to the City by the Eagles fraternal organization in 1959. Finding the absence of any City action to endorse religion due to the passive display of the monument – along with other City monuments – the trial court rejected federal and state constitutional challenges.
• Cunningham (ACLU) v. Metro, 751 F. Supp. 885 and 899 (W.D. Wa. 1990). This case challenged the constitution of the Metro Council under one–person, one–vote principles. Steve was lead counsel for Metro, which defended a statutory scheme for selecting council members established by the state legislature. The case involved important issues as to whether Metro could continue to function in its current form, or at all. Plaintiffs obtained a declaratory judgment that the Metro Council was unconstitutional, but were denied injunctive relief. Eventually the electorate corrected the defect identified by the court.
• Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn. 2d 103 (1997). This action involved three consolidated cases, each challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of the City's adult cabaret ordinance. The primary issues involved the City's right to regulate adult entertainment clubs by requiring stage and table dancers to remain certain distances from patrons, and by requiring certain minimum lighting levels. After a bench trial, the City prevailed on all major issues. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.
• Deja Vu v. City of Federal Way (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Wa. 1996 – unpublished; 96 Wn.App 255 (Wa. Ct. App. 1999); and U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Wa. 2001 – unpublished). These three cases challenged the City's adult entertainment standards of conduct and zoning regulations, including distance restrictions and licensing requirements. The City defended successfully motions for injunctive relief. Subsequently, the trial courts granted the City's motions for summary judgment in all cases; appeals were rejected in all cases.
• World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 227 F. Supp. 1143 (E.D. Wa. 2002), affirmed, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004). This case challenged the City's adult business zoning ordinance on multiple grounds, including the location of retail–only businesses, the adequacy of sites and the City's amortization provision. The City obtained summary judgment on all grounds and it was affirmed on appeal.
• State ex re. Citizens Against Tolls v. Murphy, 151 Wn.2d 226 (2004). The designer and developer of a substantial bridge project in South Puget Sound intervened and successfully defended claims challenging the constitutionality of the project and its financing. On expedited review of a summary judgment for the defendant and intervenors, the supreme court affirmed the dismissal of all claims.

Defamation/Media

• Rhinehart and Aquarian Foundation v. KIRO, 44 Wn. App. 707, rev. denied, 108 Wn.2d 1008, appeal dismissed sub nom., 108 S. Ct. 51 (1987) (“KIRO I“); ___ Wn. App. ___ (unpublished), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 142 (1990) (“KIRO II“). These were two defamation actions filed by a spiritualist church and its leader against our client, a Seattle radio/television station. The case involved important defamation issues, such as public figure status, damages, and the ability of parties to gather discovery from religious institutions. Plaintiffs resisted discovery by asserting religious precepts, and appearing at depositions in costumes and disguises. Motions to compel discovery were granted, sanctions of dismissal were eventually issued, and appeals followed. We prevailed on all issues.
• University of Washington Cases (Collins v. University of Washington; Moore v. University of Washington; Newman v. University of Washington; Lippman v. University of Washington, 1996–2000). These four cases all involved defamation claims against the University of Washington, and either its student newspaper or one or more of its professors or other employees. All four cases were resolved in favor of the University either on summary judgment or other dismissal. None of these cases were appealed.
• Ken Bianchi v. O'Brien, Hearst Corp., et al., (E.D. Wa. 1988), affirmed, (9th Cir. 1989); Bianchi v. Eclipse Publishing Co., et al., (E.D. Wa. 1993). These two actions by the “Hillside Strangler“ sought damages for multiple alleged falsehoods and invasion of privacy in a book, magazine articles, and trading cards written and published by defendants. Steve was counsel for defendants in both actions, brought in the Eastern District of Washington where plaintiff was incarcerated. The first case (O'Brien) was important because it sought to prevent publication of facts which plaintiff claimed were untrue, but which had no possibility of damaging plaintiff's reputation as a convicted mass–murderer, rapist and sodomist. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that no damage could accrue to plaintiff given the “sting“ of the admittedly truthful statements regarding his crimes. The second case (Eclipse) involved defendant's publication of trading cards using Bianchi's name and likeness. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground that the publication of a newsworthy event did not infringe plaintiff's alleged rights of privacy or publicity.
• Hearst Corporation v. State of Washington, et al. (Thurston Co. Supr. Ct. 1991 & 1992). Two actions to compel disclosure of public records were brought by the Seattle P–I against the State Investment Board. In a case of first impression, the P–I obtained disclosure of financial documents relating to the Board's $9 billion investment portfolio, over the objection of the state and some of the parties with whom the Board has invested. The Court interpreted a new exemption to the public disclosure act relating specifically to financial information of the Board. The second action compelled disclosure of a report describing the Board's real estate investments. In both cases, the court awarded attorneys' fees to the P–I as allowed by statute.
• J.Z. Knight v. American Association of Retired Persons, Thurston Co. (Wash. Superior Court). In 1995, the channeler of “Ramtha“ sued the AARP for defamation arising from an article in Modern Maturity magazine on cults. Obtained summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff admitted that she was a public figure. She was unable to show that any statement was publicized with actual malice. No appeal was taken.
• Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue, 120 Wn.App. 365 (2004). The City obtained summary judgment under a Washington statute granting immunity to any “person“ making a complaint to a governmental entity. The City had been sued for alerting a state agency regarding clear–cutting of timber upon a parcel under development. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the City.

Sports/Intellectual Property

• Seattle Mariners v. King County and Seattle Seahawks, (Kittitas Co. Supr. Ct. 1984 – unpublished). This action resolved conflicting claims by professional sports teams to use the Kingdome. Steve was lead counsel for the Seahawks; the Mariners were represented by Fred Tausend; King County was represented by the Hon. William Dwyer and Richard Yarmuth. The case involved important issues in professional sports scheduling and was of significant importance to our client to gain a competitive schedule. The Seahawks prevailed on all issues.
• Howard, et al. v. Nordstrom, et al. (King Co. Supr. Ct. 1982–85 – unpublished). This action by five former Seattle Seahawks players was brought against the partnership owning the team. The players made various claims that they had been forced to play when injured and forced to forego certain contract benefits. The case was important because it presented novel issues in sports law and attempted to avoid the grievance process agreed upon by the players' union and the National Football League teams. Arbitration was compelled in Superior Court; the team prevailed in arbitration, and confirmed the arbitration award over objections of the players.
• National Football League Properties v. Wichita Falls Sportswear, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 651 (W.D. Wa. 1982). This action sought to protect the exclusive right of the member clubs of the National Football League to use “city names“ in conjunction with the marketing of football jerseys in the colors of that city's team (e.g., selling “Seattle“ jerseys in blue, green and silver, the Seahawks' colors). The case was important because of the enormous sums of money invested in the marketing of such sportswear by legitimate licensees and the obvious deceptions engaged in by non–licensees such as defendant. Steve was co–counsel for the plaintiff, which prevailed at trial on all issues.
• American Diabetes Association v. Medical and Health Education Assoc. (W.D. Wa. 1988 – unpublished). This 1987–88 case involved claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition by our client, a national charity. The defendants obtained donations of used goods on the express and implied representations that the proceeds would benefit our client. Prior to trial, a Consent Decree was entered which provided for the continuing protection of our client's trademarks and its solicitation of charitable contributions. The terms of the decree are otherwise confidential.