Court hears arguments in United Food v. City of Tacoma over appealability and amendment rights
Loading...
Summary
Counsel for petitioners and the City of Tacoma argued before the court over whether a September superior-court order was a final, appealable judgment and whether petitioners may amend their complaint under CR 15(b); petitioners contend a due-process finding kept an initiative off the ballot and seek relief, while the city says the appeal is properly before the court and fully briefed.
Petitioners in United Food v. City of Tacoma told the court on April 1, 2026, that they seek discretionary review to pursue relief after a superior-court ruling they say violated their constitutional rights and kept a citizens' initiative off the November ballot.
"The superior court found that the city of Tacoma violated due process rights and infringed upon the initiative process," said Caitlin Kinn, counsel for the petitioners, who said the petitioners include organizational sponsors of the workers' bill-of-rights initiative led by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367 and six Tacoma voters. Kinn told the court petitioners would pursue any available procedural path — discretionary review, appeal of right, or refiling after a final judgment — to vindicate the claimed constitutional harms.
City counsel disagreed that the matter required discretionary review. "The motion to strike was denied, and this case was taken. We filed a notice of appeal, and there was never any question of appealability," the city's lawyer told the court, arguing that declaratory-judgment orders are treated as final for appeal purposes and that the appeal is fully briefed, including a cross-appeal.
The bench pressed on the precise procedural posture. Petitioners' counsel said the September order did not expressly state it was a final judgment and that some constitutional claims were raised in briefing and argument such that CR 15(b) should treat them as if they were part of the original pleading because they were "tried by consent." The city responded that the constitutional claims counsel describes "were not raised" in the superior court and that the trial judge focused on a narrower statutory question.
The parties also disputed whether the case presents the required "out-of-court effect" for discretionary review under the appellate rules. Kinn argued that a statute providing for payment of attorneys' fees in certain situations creates an external, financial effect that justifies review, saying such fee exposure could saddle petitioners with costs outside the courtroom. The court questioned whether that theory would make every money-related claim trigger discretionary review, asking whether the presence of any potential fee or damage claim would erase the rule's limitation.
The bench explored whether petitioners could pursue a separate action for damages later if the declaratory judgment remains in their favor, and counsel acknowledged they had not ruled out that possibility but had hoped to keep the claims paired for efficiency because the facts overlap.
No final ruling was issued from the bench on April 1. The presiding commissioner said the court would issue a written ruling as quickly as possible. The in-person portion of the motion docket was recessed and concluded for the day.
Why it matters: The procedural questions before the court determine whether petitioners can pursue broader constitutional relief now or must wait for the appeal's resolution; the outcome will affect whether the constitutional claims can be litigated in the superior court or must be confined by final-judgment rules and appeal procedures.
What happened next: The court took the matter and will provide a written ruling; the appellate briefing is already filed and includes a cross-appeal, according to counsel.
Quotes: "We believe CR 15(b) applies, that these were issues tried by consent," Caitlin Kinn said. "The motion to strike was denied, and this case was taken," the city's counsel said. "I will get you a written ruling as quickly as I can," the presiding commissioner told counsel.
Context and background: The proceedings concern case number 62808-2, United Food v. City of Tacoma, and involve an initiative described in court filings as a workers' bill of rights sponsored by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367 and several Tacoma voters. Parties debated whether the superior-court order that followed post-judgment motions created a final appealable judgment or left issues that would permit amendment or additional relief in the trial court.
Next steps: The court will issue a written ruling addressing whether discretionary review is available, whether CR 15(b) renders certain constitutional claims part of the operative pleading, and whether any statutory fee-shifting provides the required out-of-court effect for discretionary review.