WA Legal Roundup
Opinions out of Div. II & III as of yesterday.
Ameriquest, as part of an investigation by the AGO resulting in settlement, disclosed certain customer loan files. Someone requested those loan files, as well as the AGO attorney work product, under Washington's Public Records Act (PRA). Ameriquest sought to have all of it protected.
The trial court combined the preliminary injunction hearing and permanent injunction trial, instead of separating them out. At issue under the preliminary injunction was the applicability of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), 15 USC 6801, which protected the customer loan files, with Ameriquest arguing preemption of the PRA.
As to the combined hearing, under CR 65(a)(2), if a court is going to combine the preliminary with the permanent, it needs to do so by order, and can't render a final decision at the preliminary injunction hearing. League of Women Voters of Wash. v. King County Records, 133 Wn. App. 374, 382, 135 P.3d 985 (2006).
Turning to the pre-emption issue, the court held that the GLBA preempted, as it was a clear expression to protect customer information. The language of the GLBA specifically pre-empted state law in conflict. The GLBA has a provision specifically precluding reuse of disclosed personal information.
Given the statutory law involved, can't say it was a wrong decision. There, of course, is a lot more in there, but I'll leave that to the PRA nerds ;)
A Hague Convention case in which the court, after a motion to revise, allowed additional fact finding, introducing facts not available to the commissioner, and reversing the commissioners ruling. This is a no no, and the commissioners ruling will likely stand on remand. If you're a Family Law attorney who deals with immigrant populations, you may want to check it out.
RCW 71.05.310 permits a 30 day involuntary treatment commitment. C.M. was held for 30 days under MPR 1.2, which allowed additional time when necessary in the interests of justice.
Oddly, the court found MPR 1.2 to be only procedural, though it affects a liberty interest. As is well established, courts handle procedure, and a procedural rule can trump a statute, which the court held it did here.
I can see this going to the Washington Supreme Court.
Keeping with my long standing policy of not blogging land use decisions, land use nerds can click the link and go read. I will give you a brief holding, because it was in the first paragraph. The GMB cannot force the city and county to work together on a growth plan.
Those familiar with the criminal law know that any sentencing enhancements need to be found by a jury. The jury found Bainard guilty of committing the crime (murder) with a deadly weapon. The jury did not specifically find it was a firearm. The court reversed Bainard's 5 year firearm enhancement with directions to sentence only the 2 year firearms enhancement.