The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1-AJ - 2018 12 07 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - SIGNED2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 FILED :)\-L O '7 1..Ulh JEFFERSON COUN_'.·y DISTRICT COUR1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ST ATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Plaintiff, VS, MICHAEL ANDERSON, Defendant l Case No.: IN33 317 JC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14 This matter came on for a hearing on November 5, 2018, the Defendant Michael Anderson 15 ("Anderson") having timely contested the solid waste infraction issued for property he owns located at 16 270 W. Maude Street in Irondale ("Maude Street Property"). Attorney Joan Best filed a motion for 17 dismissal on behalf of Mr. Anderson. As ordered by the Court, Plaintiff Jefferson County filed a 18 response to the motion for dismissal. Anderson filed a reply to Plaintiffs response. 19 Based on the argument of counsel for Plaintiff Jefferson County, and argument from counsel 20 for Mr. Anderson, and the evidence presented, the Court finds the following facts are w1disputed: I. FINDINGS OF FACT 21 22 I. Since 2006, a solid waste violation and nuisance case for other prope1ty owned by 23 Anderson located at 890 Old Hadlock Road in Port Hadlock ("the Old Hadlock Property") has been 24 pending against Mr. Anderson in Superior Court. Pursuant to a Superior Court order, the first 25 abatement of junk vehicles took place on the Old Hadlock Property in 2012. September 4, 2018 26 Declaration of Roger Parker ("Parker Deel."), Exhibit 4,, 3. 27 28 FINDINGS OF }'ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGEi NOV 1 6 REC'D Michuel Haa, Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorne}· 1820 Jefferson Slreet/P.0. Box 122 Port Townsend, WA 9836 (360) 38S-91R 2. In 2011, the Superior Court permanently enjoined Anderson from certain activities on 2 the Old Hadlock Property, including bringing vehicles onto to the Old Hadlock Property that could not 3 be driven there under their own power. Id., Exhibit 4, 19. 4 3. Shortly after the 2012 abatement, Anderson began bringing new junk vehicles on to the 5 Old Hadlock Property and was held in contempt of the permanent injunction. Id, Exhibit 4, ~12-4. 6 4. On January 26, 2018, the Superior Cou1t issued an order requiring that the Superior 7 Court Clerk to issue a new Warrant of Abatement for 98 junk vehicles. The Warrant of Abatement 8 was later issued on March 6, 2018. Id., Exhibit 5, (Warrant of Abatement), list attached as Exhibit 11. 9 This order was based on written findings of fact, in which the Superior Court found that 98 vehicles on 10 the Old Hadlock Property were junk vehicles under state law and the Jefferson County Solid Waste 11 Regulations, Chapter 8.10 of the Jefferson County (JCC). The vehicles found to be junk vehicles by 12 the Superior Court are listed in Exhibit 12 attached to Warrant of Abatement issued by the Superior 13 Court Clerk. Id, Exhibit 5, list attached as Exhibit 12. 14 5. In the Superior Court proceedings, the parties agreed to a procedure where Anderson 15 would have 5 minutes to operate vehicles allegedly to be junk vehicles while the County video-taped 16 the effort. May 26, 2018 Agreed Order, Parker Deel., Exhibit 3, Paragraph 7. Based in part upon the 17 agreed test, the Superior Court determined that 98 vehicles were junk vehicles under RCW 46.55.230. 18 See Parker Deel., Exhibit 5 (Warrant of Abatement), second colunu1 of Exhibit 11 attached, identifying 19 vehicles determined to be junk vehicles by the Superior Court. 20 6. On January 26, 2018, Superior Court also held Mr. Anderson in contempt of the 21 permanent injunction for a second time. Id., Exhibit 4, ii 20. 22 7. Anderson timely appealed the January 26, 2018 orders, but did not appeal the Superior 23 Court's findings of fact that 98 vehicles are junk vehicles under state law, Chapter 46.55 RCW. 24 8. After the 98 vehicles were determined to be junk vehicles by the Superior Court and 25 after Warrant of Abatement was issued, Anderson moved vehicles on the list found by Superior Court 26 as junk vehicles from the Old Hadlock Property to the Maude Street Property. 27 28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE2 Michuel llaa, Jefferson County Prosecuting Atlornc 1820 Jefferson Street/P.O. Box 122 . Port Townsend, WA 9836 (360) 385·91 8 9. This infraction is not just about the junk vehicles Anderson moved from the Old 2 Hadlock Property to the Maude Street Property. Other solid waste is shown on the Photo Log attached 3 to the Parker Deel. as Exhibit 6. 4 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 Based upon the papers on file, the argument of counsel, and the findings of fact decided above, 6 the Court concludes the infraction is committed. The Court enters the following conclusions of law: 7 1. IRLJ 2.4 does not authorize motions to dismiss. IRLJ 2.4 sets the procedure for 8 response to a notice of infraction. It allows for only one way to contest a notice of infraction-contest 9 and request a hearing. IRLJ 2.4(b). Written statements responding to a notice of infraction are 10 allowed only if the district court authorizes them in a local rule. This Court's Local Rules have not 11 authorized opposition by written statements. Under JRLJ 3.3, contested infractions are decided at a 12 hearing. Accordingly, the motion for dismissal is denied. 13 2. While the Court denies the motion for dismissal, it considered the arguments in the 14 motion papers, response papers and reply papers at the hearing. The Court is unpersuaded by 15 Anderson's arguments. Even if motions for dismissal were allowed, the Court would deny it for the 16 reasons discussed below. 17 3. Anderson suggests that his due process rights would be violated if this CoW1: does not 18 hear his motion for dismissal. But Anderson's right to due process is guaranteed by the right to a 19 contested hearing pursuant to IRLJ 3.3. By contesting the citation, Anderson triggered his right to a 20 contested hearing. Anderson appeared at the contested hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. 21 Best. There was no violation of Anderson's due process rights. 22 4. While the IRLJ do not authorize filing a motion for dismissal, IRLJ 33.3(c) does 23 authorize the filing of a sworn written report by the officer who issued the notice. Roger Parker issued 24 the notice of infraction to Anderson. Parker Deel., Exhibit 2, ~ 20. Filing the Parker Deel. was 25 authorized IRLJ 33.3(c). 26 5. Anderson argues that he moved the vehicles from the Old Hadlock Property to the 27 Maude Street Property and repaired them so that they no longer are junk vehicles. The Superior CoW1: 28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 01'' LAW PAGE3 Michael Ha Jt:ffenmn County Prosecuting Atlome J 820 Jefferson Street/P.O. Box 122 Port Townsend, WA 9836 (360) 385-918 previously held that these vehicles were junk vehicles based in part on a test agreed to by Mr. 2 Anderson. Anderson is bound by that decision and so is this Cotrrt. If Mr. Anderson wants to contest 3 the decision of the Superior Court, he should do so in the Superior Court. 4 5 6. The evidence demonstrates violations of the Jefferson County solid waste ordinance. III. ORDER 6 Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that the infraction is 7 committed. However, the fine is suspended until the time for appealing this order runs or until there is 8 a final decision in appeal of this order. 9 DATEDthis 1 dayof~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Presented by: MICHAEL HAAS Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney 21 Approved for entry as to form: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joan Best, WSBA #724 7 Attorney for Defendant Michael Anderson FINDINGS OF FACT ANl> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE4 , 2018. Michael Haa kfferson Co unty Prosccrnli ng All orn e 1820 Jeffe rson Stree t/P.O. Box 122 Port Townsend, WA 9836 (360)·385-9 J 8(