Wok wow ao 10 uw 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE. NOTICE TO PARTIES TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION REGARDING COURT'S OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF AVAILABILITY DURING SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; JUDGE’S SCHEDULED LEAVE AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS, Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON ADAPT, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, and CLINT DIDIER; PERMANENT OFFENSE, TIMOTHY D. EYMAN, MICHAEL FAGAN; JACK FAGAN; and PIERCE COUNTY, Intervenor-Defendants. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING {JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON JONG COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT COURT'S AVAILABILITY DURING ea JUDGE’S SCHEDULED LEAVE - 1 ‘SEATTLE WA 98108 co LDV tas) Diebk ww aa 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 ‘This Notice is to apprise the parties, including the recently added intervenors, that Judge Marshall Ferguson’s personal leave is scheduled to commence on Monday, December 16, 2019, continuing through January 1, 2020, with the Judge returning to work on Thursday, January 2, 2020. The leave dates were scheduled long before the above-captioned matter was assigned to Judge Ferguson. Given the utmost urgency of this case to the public and the parties, however, Judge Ferguson agrees to make himself available on his scheduled leave dates, in person and in open court if necessary, to hear time-sensitive motions or other significant matters on a case-by-case basis. The following limitations and conditions will apply: 1, Judge Ferguson will not be available on Court holidays (December 25, 2019; January 1, 2020) or on days when the Court closes due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., inclement weather). 2. Judge Ferguson will not be available in person on December 16-20, 2019. 3. If Judge Ferguson opens his courtroom for this case on a scheduled leave day, then Judge Ferguson’s courtroom shall be open to all business of the Court, not just this case. Pursuant to court rules, the Court maintains its discretion to deny oral argument on nondispositive motions, to issue rulings on motions after the scheduled hearing date, and to otherwise manage the litigation as justice demands, DATED this 13th day of December, 2019. JUDGE MARSHALE- FERGUSON NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING {UGE MARSHALL FERGUSON ING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT COURT’S AVAILABILITY DURING ‘6 THAD AVENUE JUDGE'S SCHEDULED LEAVE - 2 searag wasnAu ek ww Sce a ul 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 ‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 Without Oral Argument SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE ORDER GRANTING TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION, INTERVENOR STATUS TO CLINT OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF DIDIER AND DENYING IN PART SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; MOTION TO INTERVENE AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS, Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON ADAPT, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Third Party Motion To Intervene intervenors Clint Didier; Kevin Heinen, (“Motion To Intervene” herein) brought by propose Matthew Morell, John Logue, and Parker Olsen. The Court considered the Motion To Intervene, ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR UBS MARSMALL FERGUSON STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND Resins awene DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEATIE WA96I08 INTERVENE - 1 Cc OPY (205) a77a503the supporting declarations of Stephen Pidgeon and ‘Tim Eyman! (Sub. Nos. 84, 85) and the ing under oath or penalty jervenors stating, but not atte “verifications” signed by the propose of perjury, that the facts set forth in a previously filed motion to intervene are true (Sub. No. 41), No existing party has filed either a stipulation or an opposition to the motion. The proposed intervenors have not provided a proposed pleading setting forth their claims or defenses, as required by CR 24(c). Based upon the Court’s review of the motion, the supporting hereby s, and the Court file, it i materia ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is GRANTED IN PART, in that proposed intervenor Clint Didier is granted intervenor status in the above- captioned matter. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is DENIED IN PART, in that proposed intervenors Kevin Heinen, Matthew Morell, John Logue, and Parker Olsen are denied intervenor status in the above-captioned matter. The Motion To Intervene fails to provide any factual basis for distinguishing between cach of the five individuals seeking to intervene. All are identically self-described as “a taxpayer, a vehicle owner, and a registered voter who voted in support of 1-976.” Sub. No. 41. Nowhere do the proposed intervenors explain why five identically described individual taxpayers should all be granted intervenor status in this case rather than just one, especially where all five would be represented by the same attorney asserting the same arguments on their behalf. Since the interests of Messrs. Heinen, Morell, Logue, and Olsen will be adequately represented by intervenor Mr. Didier, intervention of right as to the four others is denied. CR 24(a)(2). * The Court intends no disrespect to Mr. Eyman by informally referring to him as “Tim Eyman” here. The subject declaration is entitled “Declaration of Tim Eyman.” Other documents filed with the Court refer to Mr. Eyman as “Timothy Eyman” or “Timothy Donald Eyman”, ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR | UBSE MARSHALL FERGUSON STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND STD aae DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEATTIE WA E104 INTERVENE - 2 (209) 77.513Sow aa u 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Court exercises its discretion in denying permissive intervention to Messrs. Heinen, Morell, Logue, and Olsen. The Motion To Intervene offers no explanation as to each proposed intervenor’s distinctive basis for intervention and no limiting principle on the notion that each and every individual taxpaying vehicle owner who voted for I-976 should be granted intervenor status in this lawsuit. Absent such information, the Court grants intervenor status to Mr. Didier alone, without prejudice to the other proposed intervenors bringing a supplemental motion to intervene establishing individualized grounds for their intervention? Or, if another of the proposed intervenors should be substituted for Mr. Didier, the Court would consider such a request. The case caption shall be amended to add Mr. Didier as an intervenor-defendant. ML JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON DATED this 13th day of December, 2019. ? This Order extends the existing, stipulated December 9, 2019 deadline for filing motions to intervene to December 23, 2019 solely to accommodate the four potential intervenors other than Mr. Didier, and not for any other purpose. JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR OE MAASHALL FERGUSON STATUS TO CLINT DIDIER AND. aa DENYING IN PART MOTION TO Sear wnasin INTERVENE - 3n 2 13, 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 ‘THE HONORABLE MARSHALL FERGUSON IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF | NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA. SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE ‘TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF PREPSSER SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION ORDER GRANTING PIERCE COUNTY'S LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE WASHINGTON, and MICHAEL ROGERS, __ | AND FOR RELIEF FROM SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. This matter came on regularly for hearing before the undersigned Judge on the 13th day of December, 2019, on a motion by Pierce County, for an Order allowing Pierce County to intervene and for relief from the deadline set for intervention. ‘The Court has considered Pierce County’s Motion to Intervene and for Relief From Scheduling Order, and the records herein, and being fully advised, it is hereby MW Pierce Coury Prosecuting Attorney Divison 955 Tacoma Aveaue Sou, Suit 301 Tacoma, Washington 96402-2160 VW Main" (53) DHEGTI?/ Pr (253) 986713 L Seopmeed Order Grating Motion to intervene (bench copy) . COP’ Me10 ul 2 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 Mt ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Pierce County’s Unopposed Motion to Intervene and for Relief From Scheduling Order is GRANTED. DATED. this 13 day of December, 2019. ML wee MARSHALL FERGUSON, Judge Presented by: MARY ROBNETT Prosecuting Attorney s/ DANIEL R. HAMILTON DANIEL R. HAMILTON, WSBA # 14658 s/ FRANK A. CORNELIUS FRANK A. CORNELIUS, WSBA #29590 Pierce County Prosecutor / Civil 955 Tacoma Avenue South, Suite 301 Tacoma, WA 98402-2160 Ph: 253-798-6732 / Fax: 253-798-6713 Evmail: dan.hamilton@piercecountywa.eov 2 Piero County Prosecuting Ateney/Civi Division Proposed Order Granting Motion to Intervene (beac copy) 955 Tacoma Avene Sut, Sut 301 cate No “Tacoma, Washington 98402-2160 Main’ 053) 986732 Fac 53) 798-6713,The Honorable Marshall Ferguson Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 Without Oral Argument SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE ORDER GRANTING TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION INTERVENOR STATUS TO OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF PERMANENT OFFENSE, SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; TIMOTHY EYMAN, MICHAE AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION FAGAN, AND JACK FAGAN, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS, Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON ADAPT, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion For Intervention brought by proposed intervenors Permanent Offense, Timothy Donald Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Michael Fagan. The Court considered the Motion For Intervention, the supporting declarations of Timothy Donald Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack Fagan with the exhibits thereto, and the Court file. JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR, 86501 STATUS TO PERMANENT. se COUNTY suPEnIO OFFENSE, TIMOTHY EYMAN, SEATTLE WA 98108 MICHAEL FAGAN, AND JACK, (209) 4771513, FAGAN - 1 COPYwa ween 10 u B 4 15 16 7 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 No existing party has filed either a stipulation or an opposition to the motion. The proposed intervenors have not provided a proposed pleading setting forth their claims or defenses, as required by CR.24(c). Based upon the Court’s review of the motion, the supporting materials, and the Court file, itis hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to intervene is GRANTED. Permanent Offense, Timothy Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack Fagan are granted intervenor status in the above-captioned matter. The case caption shall be amended to add them as intervenor-defendants. DATED this 13th day of December, 2019. ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR upsemaasa EON STATUS TO PERMANENT S16 THIRD AVENUE OFFENSE, TIMOTHY EYMAN, SEATTLE WAS&I08 (200) 4771503 MICHAEL FAGAN, AND JACK FAGAN -2wk ww Sc wre ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ‘The Honorable Marshall Ferguson Hearing Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 Without Oral Argument SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY GARFIELD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION NO. 19-2-30171-6 SEA AUTHORITY; KING COUNTY; CITY OF SEATTLE; WASHINGTON STATE, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSIT ASSOCIATION: ASSOCIATION APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL OF WASHINGTON CITIES; PORT OF SEATTLE; INTERCITY TRANSIT; AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF WASHINGTON; and MICHAEL ROGERS, Plaintiffs, and WASHINGTON ADAPT, Intervenor-Plaintiff, STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. THIS MATTER, before the Court upon the Motion To Appoint Outside Counsel (“Motion To Appoint”) brought by proposed intervenors! Permanent Offense, Timothy Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Michael Fagan (“Proposed Intervenors”), and the Court, having considered the Motion To Appoint, the supporting declarations of Timothy D. Eyman, Michael Fagan, and Jack * See below the Court’s admonition regarding adherence to court rules. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL - 1 Se TIADAVERIE Ce oO py (ao) 4773519bk ww Soe ana MW 12 1B 14 15 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fagan with the exhibits thereto, defendant State of Washington's Opposition To Intervenors’ Motion To Appoint Outside Counsel, the supporting Declaration of Karl D. Smith with the exhibits thereto, the Proposed Intervenors’ Reply to the Opposition with the exhibits thereto, and the Court file; and the Court, being fully apprised as to the arguments and authorities therefor, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Proposed Intervenors’ Motion To Appoint Outside Counsel is DENIED. ‘The Court does not herein address all of the parties’ motion arguments. ‘The Court notes, however, that at several points in their motion materials, Mr. Eyman, the Fagans, and Permanent Offense appear to argue that discovery is needed in this case. See, e.g., Reply, pp. 4-5 (Sub. No. 109). Nothing in this Order precludes any party from requesting relief from the Court's December 5, 2019 Scheduling Order On Dispositive Motions on the basis that discovery should occur (or on any other valid basis). Ata minimum, however, a party seeking discovery would need to make a showing that there exists a material fact in dispute for which discovery is necessary, especially in light of the strong likelihood that permitting discovery would prolong considerably the pendency of this lawsuit in the King County Superior Court. If there exist disputed issues of fact for a trial, that trial would not occur until the current trial date of November 9, 2020. In light of the urgency of this lawsuit, any party seeking relief from the Scheduling Order On Dispositive Motions on the basis that discovery needs to occur concerning a triable issue should do so without undue delay. On a procedural note, the Court observes that Proposed Intervenors filed their Motion To Appoint on December 4, 2019, nine days before the Court entered today’s separate order granting them intervenor status. The Proposed Intervenors noted the Motion To Appoint to be pore cited sve coUNTY Sure WOR COUNT APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL -2 coun seo (200) 477.513,ul 12 13 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 a1 2 2B 24 25 jout oral argument on December 13, 2019, the same hearing date as their intervention heard motion. Sub. Nos. 73,75. This was improper. Prospective intervenors are not parties and do not possess standing to seck any relief other than leave to intervene. See River Park Square, LLC v. Miggins, 143 Wn.2d 68, 17 P.3d 1178 (2001) (motion for change of judge properly denied because prospective intervenor did not have standing as a party to make motion). Court rules do not permit prospective intervenors to bring motions to be heard on the same date as their motions for intervention under the assumption that the court will grant intervention? To do so would be unfair to existing parties who, not knowing whether the court will grant or deny intervention, must guess as to whether to file materials in opposition to a non-party’s motion, Here, defendant State of Washington filed an opposition to the Motion To Appoint and did not object based upon the Proposed Intervenors’ lack of standing. Intervenor-plaintiff Washington ADAPT, which was granted intervenor status on December 10, 2019, was deprived of notice and an opportunity to be heard as to the Motion To Appoint. Nonetheless, in the interest of judicial economy and the efficient administration of this case, the Court exercised its discretion and considered the Motion To Appoint instead of striking the motion without ruling on its merits based upon lack of standing or lack of due process for Washington ADAPT. The Court will not permit parties or proposed intervenors to run roughshod over court rules and procedural requirements, however. The Court maintains its authority to deny relief to future ? Im the Motion To Appoint, the Proposed Intervenors cite only “CR 24” without citing any subsection of the rule ‘or explaining how CR 24 allows non-party prospective intervenors to bring motions other than ¢ motion to intervene. To the extent that the proposed intervenors contend thatthe Motion To Appoint constitutes the “pleading” required bby CR 24(0), the Court rejects such contention on the grounds that (1) the Proposed Intervenors separately filed the Motion To Appoint, separately noted it for a hearing, and provided a separate proposed order, instead of merely providing the Motion To Appoint with the intervention motion, as expressly contemplated by CR 24(c), and (2) the Motion To Appoint isa request thatthe Court take action now, not just a pleading setting forth claims and defenses for the Court’ ultimate determination in the case. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Perera gerenieeeerel APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSE me Gye TH AVENUE “tose10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed intervenors who note substantive motions for hearing on the same date as their intervention motion? DATED this 13th day of December, 2019. ML JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON The Court would allow a proposed intervenor to bring a motion to shorten time to hear the intervention motion, as ‘motion to shorten time would not be substantive but would relate solely o the limited issue ofthe timing of hearing, the intervention motion, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JUDGE MARSHALL FERGUSON APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL - 4 beara Sexe wnaeiog (as arias