Appeals court hears Rover Stayover's claim that Whatcom County's statements to CBP cost it a kennel contract

Attorney Mark Lee represented appellant Rover Stayover during oral argument, telling the court he seeks reversal of summary judgment because the county's communications to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) gave rise to negligence and tortious-interference claims. "I'm here representing Robert Staover, who is asking this court to reverse the trial court's granting of summary judgment," Lee said, arguing the county voluntarily engaged with CBP and therefore owed a duty of reasonable care once it stepped into the communications.

Lee framed the dispute around two core points: first, he said the public-duty doctrine does not apply because the claims are not grounded in a statute or ordinance but in voluntary county communications; second, he invoked Borden v. City of Olympia to argue the county had a duty to act reasonably after choosing to respond to CBP. Lee told the court the record contains repeated communications showing the county knew CBP was relying on its statements and that a factfinder could conclude CBP relied on that information when awarding the contract.

Quinn Plan, attorney for Whatcom County, answered that the factual context is different and emphasized years of code-enforcement and permitting history involving both Rover and a competitor, R and R Kennels. "They had a permitted expired. They're a nonconforming use. They're working to become permitted, and we don't plan on taking any action to shut them down," Plan said, describing the county's approach as cooperative enforcement rather than a plan to favor one operator.

Plan further argued that the record shows only a single county communication on 08/19/2020 referencing conditional-use permits and that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the procurement and found the award proper. He told the panel there is no evidence that the county's email was presented to the CBP decisionmakers or that it was the cause of the award, and he noted the solicitation record reflects multiple evaluation factors and that R and R submitted the lowest price.

Throughout argument, the judges questioned whether answering CBP's inquiry about permits is an exclusive government function (which could implicate the public-duty doctrine), and they pressed both sides on causation: whether the county's statements actually reached or influenced CBP decisionmakers and whether factual disputes remain for trial. Lee stressed emails in the record in which CBP sought assurance and told the vendor it would proceed "unless the county tells us otherwise," arguing that evidence supports a reasonable inference of reliance.

No decision was announced from the bench during the session. The argument record shows the panel focused on whether the public-duty doctrine shields the county and whether there is sufficient, material evidence of causation to defeat summary judgment. The court took the matter under advisement at the close of oral argument.