Fighting for Your Rights to Busk/Perform

Amplification Ethics

by Stephen H. Baird

1982-2021 by Stephen Baird

I wrote the editorials enclosed below for the Street Performers’ Newsletter in 1982 Court decisions have been inconsistent, but are growing in supporting the right to use amplification.  The battle rages on repeatedly in state and federal courts including

these newer cases Turley vs NYC was favorably decided in May 1997, including a substantial financial settlement Turley v. NYC 988 F.Supp, 667 & 675 (1997). See US 2nd Cir Appeal 98-7114 (1999) web site decision: http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/January99/98-71141.html. 

A text version of the Turley decision is available on this site by clickinghere

Ocean City Boardwalk 2013 amplification case: Hassay v. Mayor, 955 F.Supp.2d 505 (2013)“The violinist, William Hassay, asserted that the restriction prevented him from communicating any emotion with his music, and therefore he had stopped playing on the boardwalk. Id. at 512. During a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, two of the Plaintiffs in this case, Mark Chase and Alex Young, testified that they had also been warned and/or cited for violating the restriction. Id. at 513-14. In addition, an expert provided unrebutted testimony that on the boardwalk, a musician needed to play at a level of at least seventy decibels for the music to be intelligible to an audience fifteen feet away. Id. at 524. At seventy decibels, however, the music would also be “easily audible” at a distance of thirty feet and accordingly violate the restriction. Id.

Applying intermediate scrutiny[10] Judge Hollander held that the plaintiff had established a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to his First Amendment claim. Specifically, the restriction was not narrowly tailored to prevent excessive noise and did not leave open ample alternative channels for communication given that, “[i]n effect, the 30-Foot Audibility Restriction [wa]s tantamount to a complete ban on the use of musical instruments and amplified sound on the boardwalk.” Id. at 524. Accordingly, this Court entered a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the restriction as applied to the boardwalk. Id. at 527. Ultimately, the parties jointly requested that the injunction be made permanent. Hassay, 955 F.Supp.2d 505 at ECF No. 43″.

Venice Beach Boardwalk musician legal battle – US District Judge Pregerson blocks Venice boardwalk lottery permit system and amplification ban in Dowd and all vs City of Los Angles – October 21, 2010 (Dowd v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-06731 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)

• District Court Injunction opinion: vbbc.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/venice-dowd-injunction.doc
• Los Angels Times article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/local/la-me-venice-vendors-20101027

“Other courts have struck down amplified sound restrictions  less sweeping than the total ban on amplified sound on the Venice  Boardwalk. See, e.g., Deegan v. City of Ithaca, 444 F.3d 135 (2d  Cir. 2006) (holding noise regulation as applied to prohibit any  sound that could be heard 25 feet from its source in downtown  pedestrian mall was not narrowly tailored); Doe, 968 F.2d at 89  (holding regulation prohibiting operating an audio device in a manner exceeding 60 decibels at 50 feet was not narrowly tailored  as applied to Lafayette Park because “[b]y no reasonable measure  does Lafayette Park display the characteristics of a setting in  which the government may lay claim to a legitimate interest in  maintaining tranquility”); Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, Miss.,  664 F.2d 502, 516 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding ban on amplified sound  in residential zones overbroad because “the ordinance extends its  total and non-discretionary prohibition to areas which have not  been shown to be incompatible with sound equipment”); Reeves v.  McConn, 631 F.2d 377, 384 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding amplified sound  ban in downtown business district was not narrowly tailored because “there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified free speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district”); Burbridge v. Sampson, 74 F. Supp. 2d 940, 951 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (Collins, J.) (granting preliminary injunction against rule banning amplified sound on community college campus except in three “preferred areas” because the defendants “failed to rebut Plaintiffs’ claim that the ‘preferred areas’ do not meet the ‘ample alternatives for communications’ requirement for reasonable content-neutral, time place, and manner regulation”); Lionhart v. Foster, 100 F. Supp. 2d 383 (E.D. La. 1999) (holding that law “regulat[ing] the production of sound in excess of 55 decibels within 10 feet of  hospitals or churches during posted services” was “unreasonably  overbroad in the context of normal activities on public streets  and in public parks”).

Of course, even in a traditional public forum, reasonable  restrictions on the use of amplified sound are permitted, so long  as they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government  interest. But, because “streets, sidewalks, parks and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely.” Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 u.s. 507, 515 (1976) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Cit:y’s absolute ban on the use of amplified sound twenty-four hours per day on the Boardwalk except in a limited number of specially designated spaces simply sweeps too broadly and does not materially advance the City’s proffered interest. Because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that  the amplified sound ban is facially overbroad (and because, as mentioned earlier, the balance of hardships and the public interest weigh in favor of enjoining regulations that violate the First Amendment), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for  preliminary injunction with respect to LAMC § 43.15 (F) (5).”

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

Federal Court 2002 case protecting amplification: Casey v. City of Newport 308 F.3d 106. 110 (1st. Cir. 2002)  Google Scholar Text, Law Resource Text

…amplifiers are also used to create new “messages” that cannot be conveyed without amplification equipment. Amplification enables performers to boost the relative volume of quiet instruments, such as the bass and the lower registers of the human voice, [*29] and to adjust the tonal qualities of voices and instruments without necessarily increasing the overall volume of the performance.

Much modern music simply cannot be performed without the use of amplifiers. Thus the ban on amplification has a direct and immediate effect on the expression at issue. The record therefore does not support the district court’s conclusion that appellants “could still convey their . . . messages” without amplification. Without amplification, some of the messages are not conveyed at all.

In restating its conclusion about the total ban on amplification, without additional analysis, the district court repeated its error of neglecting to consider the viability of the less-burdensome alternative of enforcing the City’s noise ordinance. We therefore remand to the district court for consideration [*34] of appellants’ challenge to the no-amplification-of-instruments restriction under the framework described in this opinion.

We have held that the district court erred in finding that the total ban on amplification was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. We conclude likewise with respect to the ban on amplification of instruments. In restating its conclusion about the total ban on amplification, without additional analysis, the district court repeated its error of neglecting to consider the viability of the less-burdensome alternative of enforcing the City’s noise ordinance.

CONCUR: McAULIFFE, District Judge (concurring)

In the world of modern music, “amplified” is not synonymous with “made louder.” Electronic musical instruments can only produce sound through a process of electronic amplification, but those instruments are not inherently louder than acoustic or unamplified instruments. A modern synthesizer, for example, can make sound only by means of electronic amplification, yet that amplified instrument easily and faithfully mimics the sounds produced by a wide range of acoustic instruments such as pianos, harps, flutes, acoustic guitars, violins, drums, etc. Moreover, the synthesizer can reproduce those musical sounds as softly and quietly as desired. Yet, the synthesizer falls within the City’s ban. An electronically amplified Aeolian Harp can produce the same “soft floating witchery of sound” as nature’s own, but the volume is more easily controlled on the amplified version.

Note: Periodically the courts hint about possible new areas to challenge in their opinions when they were not directly asked to review the issue in the current case. I’ve bolded, for emphasis, this hint from the Turley vs NYC, US 2nd Cir Appeal 98-7114 (1999):

Although we are concerned about the silencing of performers while their amplifiers are in police custody – and assume, without deciding, that in some circumstances a sound amplifier and similar equipment could be considered speech as opposed to its instrumentality – we affirm the district court’s ruling. In supplemental briefing on this issue, the City explained that the confiscation policy is necessary. Second note:  The above cited case did make this challenge in 2002 see: Casey v. City of Newport 308 F.3d 106. 110 (1st. Cir. 2002)

This case Carew-Reid v. Metropolitan Transportation Auth., 903 F2d 914 (2nd Cir. 1990) on amplified music on New York City subway platforms did allow a complete ban of amplification.A text version of the Carew-Reid decision is available on this site by clickinghere

By contrast, in the instant case the source of the “evil” is the medium of expression itself. Appellants have determined, after their experience under the experimental guidelines, that amplified music routinely produces excessive noise. The incidental effect of the amplifier ban, obviously, is that those musicians who previously used amplifiers on subway platforms will be forced to alter their performances or to perform elsewhere. Nevertheless, this restriction on the manner of their expression is justified because it is the manner itself that produces the evil that is the object of regulation, and, based on appellants’ showing, the regulation would be less effective absent this restriction. The amplifier ban therefore meets the narrow tailoring requirement….

The First Amendment, however, does not guarantee appellees access to every or even the best channels or locations for their expression. See Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 812. Appellees can perform in some of the subway mezzanines and above ground and still reach similar, if not the same, audiences that they could perform for on the subway platforms.

New Orleans street performers in Lionhart v. Foster 100 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.La.,1999) (Court Opinion PDF) won federal case that declared sound level of 55db to be unconstitutional. The judge refereed to cases which gave amplification First Amendment protection and cited cases in Houston 631 F.2d at 381 n. 1. The court noted that “there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district.” District of Columbia Circuit struck down a federal regulation which prohibited the playing of musical instruments at a level higher than “60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet.” (The last case also included the playing of drums in front of the White House)

Lionhart v. Foster 100 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.La.,1999) (Court Opinion PDF) Case Quote:

When First Amendment freedoms are implicated, the Court must place these freedoms in a preferred position. See id.; accord Reeves, 631 F.2d at 383. The government bears the burden of justifying its regulation as narrowly tailored. See Doe, 968 F.2d at 90.

The state’s asserted interest in preserving the tranquility of the community against excessive noise is clearly legitimate. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 796, 109 S.Ct. at 2756; Kovacs, 336 U.S. at 87-88, 69 S.Ct. at 453-54; Reeves, 631 F.2d at 384. However, the importance of First Amendment freedoms necessitates that the state regulate in this area only with narrow specificity.

When the government chooses to prohibit sound levels in public places that are not demonstrably disturbing, the courts will reject the regulation as overly broad. For example, in Reeves v. McConn, the Fifth Circuit invalidated a Houston ordinance prohibiting the operation of sound amplifying equipment in excess of 20 watts within 100 yards of any hospital, school, church, or courthouse. 631 F.2d at 381 n. 1. The court noted that “there is probably no more appropriate place for reasonably amplified speech than the streets and sidewalks of a downtown business district.” Id. at 384. See also Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, 664 F.2d at 516 (“Because this ordinance extends its total and non-discretionary prohibition to areas which have not been shown to be incompatible with sound equipment, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.”). The court stated that, in addition to the “narrowly tailored” requirement, the number of watts chosen as the point of regulation must also be reasonable. See Reeves, 631 F.2d at 387. The city could not broadly prohibit reasonably amplified speech simply because it feared that disruption might sometimes result. See id. at 388. Relying on the plaintiff’s uncontroverted expert testimony that sound amplification in excess of 20 watts could be non-disruptive, the court held the ordinance unconstitutionally overbroad to the extent that it limited the sound level to 20 watts. See id. at 387-88. The Fifth Circuit stated that “there is no valid state interest in prohibiting amplified sound that does not actually cause, or imminently threaten to cause, material disruption at these [schools, churches, courthouses] locations.” Id. at 385.

On similar facts, the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a federal regulation which prohibited the playing of musical instruments at a level higher than “60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet.” Doe, 968 F.2d at 89-90. Defendants there were arrested under the regulation for chanting and beating drums in Lafayette Park across from the White House during a war protest. See id. at 87. The court observed that ” ‘excessive’ noise by definition means something above and beyond the ordinary noises associated with the appropriate and customary uses of the park.” Id. at 89. The defendant proffered evidence that loud conversations exceed 60 decibels, and the government offered nothing to show that the chosen decibel level prohibited only disturbing or excessive speech activity. See id. at 90-91 (“Where constitutionally protected activity is implicated, we cannot simply defer to the Park Service’s unexplained judgment.”). The court therefore found that the government failed to carry its burden of showing that the regulation was narrowly *388 tailored to further its interest in preventing excessive noise in a traditional public forum. See id. See also U.S. Labor Party v. Pomerleau, 557 F.2d 410, 413 (4th Cir.1977) (invalidating city anti-noise ordinance when decibel level prohibited noise no greater than person speaking slightly louder than normal); Maldonado v. County of Monterey, 330 F.Supp. 1282, 1286 (N.D.Cal.1971) (finding unconstitutional county ordinance prohibiting any amplification of human voice above normal speaking level from all public highways). [7]

Here, La.Rev.Stat. § 14:103.2 regulates the production of sound in excess of 55 decibels within 10 feet of hospitals or churches during posted services. Unlike the cited cases, however, the Louisiana statute does not flatly prohibit the production of sound in excess of the stated decibel level. Rather, producing sound above this level in these locations can be prosecuted if one does so “in a manner likely to disturb, inconvenience, or annoy a person of ordinary sensibilities.” La.Rev.Stat. § 14:103.2. The Court concludes, however, that because the 55 decibel level threshold is so unreasonably overbroad in the context of normal activities on public streets and in public parks, the added requirement that the sound be made in a manner that is likely to annoy or disturb someone does not save it.

Lionhart v. Foster, 100 F.Supp.2d 383 (E.D.La.,1999) (Court Opinion PDF)

New Orleans artists also received a preliminary injunction restraining order on May 31, 1996 when the city tried to impose a inaudible at 25 foot requirement Case 96-1869 (E.D.La.,1996) 

ROSELYN LIONHART, et al versus CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al;1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18903 (December 13, 1996).  The City of Ithica, New York also had an inaudible at 25 foot volume restriction that was challenged by a street preacher in DEEGAN v. CITY OF ITHACA, 444 F.3d 135 (2006).

We find that the challenged noise ordinances, as interpreted, construed, and enforced by Defendants against Deegan cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Deegan and award him appropriate relief.

[T]he Court finds that Katra made his measurements in February at the same place and time of day as the October 9, 1999 incident in issue; that 56 decibels was the maximum noise level at which a person could speak and still be in compliance with the ordinance 50 percent of the time; that this decibel level is lower than that generated by the clicking of high-heeled boots, conversations between two or three people, a shop door opening and closing, a small child playing on a playground and a cellular telephone; that most normal human activity would be clearly audible at a distance of 25 feet; and that a spirited conversation between two people would be clearly audible at a distance of 25 feet. The Court further finds that there is no evidence regarding how many people were in “close proximity” (six to eight feet) of plaintiff while he was preaching; that Katra did not measure the decibel level of plaintiff’s preaching; that the duration of a loud sound is an important factor in whether it is annoying or alarming; and that factors such as annoyance and alarm cannot be scientifically measured.

Quite simply, a noise regulation that prohibits “most normal human activity,” including a spirited conversation by only two people, is not narrowly tailored to serve the City’s interest in maintaining a reasonable level of sound, at least in a public forum like the Commons.

DEEGAN v. CITY OF ITHACA, 444 F.3d 135 (2006). http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/444/135/546275/  or https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/444/444.F3d.135.html

---

Freedom is a Constant Struggle– Keep the Faith

Stephen H. Baird, August 2006

---

Amplification Ethics

The use of loud speakers and amplifiers on the streets is a volatile issue. The United States Supreme Court and the lower courts have ruled on the issue many times. See the American Law Review, 10 ALR2d 627-634 for a general overview. The court cases: Saia v New York, 334 US 558 (1948); Kovacs v Cooper, 336 US 77 (1949); Phillips v Township of Darby, 305 F. Supp. 765 (1969); Maldonada v County of Monterey, 330 F. Supp. 1282 (1971); US Labor Party v Rochford, 416 F. Supp. 204 (1975); US Labor Party v Pomerleau, 557 F2d 410 (1977); and Reeves v McConn, 631 F2d 337 (1980); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989); Carew-Reid v. Metropolitan Transportation Auth., 903 F2d 914 (2nd Cir. 1990) should be seen for specific information.

A prior restraint involves discretion over some form of protected expression, and Madison contends that only speech, not amplified speech, enjoys First Amendment protection. This is incorrect. The First Amendment protects effective speech, not merely uttered words, and effective speech sometimes requires that ideas be transformed into musical speech, loud speech, financial speech or other forms of expression that a casual reading of the First Amendment might not reveal as “speech.”

Stokes v City of Madison

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit., 930 F.2d 1163, 59 USLW 2652, (1991)

In general, the courts have suggested amplification should be allowed, but regulated by wattage (power) or decibels (volume). The US Supreme Court, however, has let stand a blanket prohibition of sound trucks. In the Carew-Reid v. Metropolitan Transportation Auth, 903 F2d 914 (2nd Cir. 1990) the 2nd Circuit court considered electronic music on subway platforms as a unique artistic medium covered by the First Amendment. but still allowed a total ban of amplified music. This court specifically rejected the less restrictive alternative offered by decibel meter enforcement, because “electronic amplifiers…carry the potential for producing sound above the regulation’s limits with as little effort as a simple twist of a knob.”

The abusive use of amplification by a few individuals can and has caused considerable damage to the free use of public spaces for the dissemination of artistic ideas. Police and public officials often will ban street performances altogether instead of assuming the responsibility of selective enforcement when confronted by excessive use of amplifiers. Munich, Amsterdam, and other European cities banned street performances because some street artists from the U.S. incessantly kept their amplifiers too loud. Several cities in the U.S., including Boston for a while, were closed for the same reason.

Large corporations, institutions, churches and governmental organizations can and have used amplification devices on streets and parks. Individual street performers can not possibly compete if money, volume in this case is left unchecked. The amplification devices will just get bigger and bigger until only one or two performances can be heard. The louder the amplifiers the fewer artists can survive. Read “For Sale: Freedom of Speech,” by Charles Rembar, Atlantic Monthly, March, 1981, pp. 22-32, or Lawrence H. Tribe’s Constitutional Choices, Harvard University Press, 1985, for a comprehensive discussion about the imbalance of money and First Amendment issues in Supreme Court decisions.

The “double standard” and bias toward state sponsored amplified events and parades, large organization amplified demonstrations, mass transportation, construction and other commercial activities such as air conditioners and building ventilation systems which all exceed decibels levels of 80-100db is to be expected. Over 90% of the Federal Judges have been appointed by conservative administrations and they have reversed the previous long standing least restrictive analysis precedents. Court cases will not help on this issue and the battle will have to won politically. The political battle can not be won if the street performing community is divided by the few individuals who abuse their amplifiers and if those same individuals are allowed to antagonize the residents and local businesses.

The political strategy is to keep maximum sound levels below the background noise which is usually 80db on a busy city street (measured at 25 feet which gives an artist a 50 foot circle to communicate with a crowd). It is ethically hard for residents, businesses and public officials to protest a sound level that is at the same level of sound they themselves create. This will not work unless there are ways to enforce and fine artists who exceed the sound levels. The background sound levels decrease in the evenings (less traffic) and these sound levels will be more discernible at greater distances, which can cause more complaints (It is not louder but can be more intrusive because of less “white” background noise as a cover.). It is therefor harder to get performances past 11:00 pm unless it is a commercial area with few residences. All these issues point to a comprehensive and complicated street performance ordinance with volume regulations. Courts do not write laws and these issues must be won through the legislative process (It has been done in Cambridge, MA with provisions for amplification at 80 db at 25 feet and protection for residents with 60 db daytime or 50 db at night provided the background noise is exceeded by 10 db(A)).

While conducting research for my book, “The History and Cultural Impact of Street Performing,” I have interviewed street audiences and have found the audiences preferred a varied and diverse group of street acts to choose from. They would be less likely to stop and stay, or bring their friends, if one street performer or group dominated an area. The audiences were more likely to donate to performers who were approachable and not to performers that intimidated them with volume (walls of sound).

Questions immediately arise: Are messages being forced upon the public through ever increasing amplification? Is the lack of audience due to the inability of being heard or by the style of presentation, or by the actual ideas themselves?

There is no question that electronic music is a protected contemporary form of First Amendment expression, which necessitates some form of amplification. However, the courts and public officials are often unwilling to distinguish between those who use amplifiers sensitively and those who abuse them. While these officials must be pressured and educated to make discerning instead of absolute judgments, there is no substitute for awareness and sensitivity by the street artists who use amplifiers.

Final note: I often campare sound levels measurements by decibel meter with speed measurements of cars by radar devises. The failure of municipal, state and federal legislatures to require current technology and science to measure sound in noise ordinances leaves the government workers, police and courts into a quagmire of linguistic uncertainty over the definitions of “annoying” and “unreasonable” sound enforcement definitions. I wonder how many judges, legislators and even police would accept being convicted for speeding with no radar readings and just the observation that they were going unreasonably to fast.

Two Views of a Saturday Night

First View: On a Saturday night in Harvard Square thirty different artists- two jugglers, two magicians, one mime, three clowns, a five person musical group from South America, a three person blues band, a storyteller, a three piece jazz band, a solo rock act, three solo folk acts, and a three piece rock band are playing. Each group has about 50-200 people watching (1500-6000 people total). During the breaks the crowd shifts between all the different groups. Over 300-400 people will visit each artists in the evening during these shifts. There is a lot of excitement. The crowds are generous and they come back with their friends. “If you like this act wait till you see the next one!”

Second View: On a Saturday night in Harvard Square thirty different artists set up. One rock band sets up in the middle of Brattle Square and turns the volume so loud that all other acts have to stop their show. Immediately 300-400 people who like rock music and other curious people converge. The crowd expands and then reduces to the number who can see and participate (300-400 people total). During the breaks there is no crowd shifts because there are no other crowds. When the second show begins the audience consists of many the same people and donations go down dramatically. There is no diversity. There is no excitement. People do not come back. Weeks later the crowds will continue to grow smaller (Note: It is now easier for businesses and governmental authorities to curtail street music because less people will protest.). “I’ve seen that group before. They’re here all the time. Let’s go to a movie”

Conclusion: The first view it is a real cultural movement- full of diversity, different cultures, conflicting opinions and ideas, a real community that cares about and for each individual. A community that understands the interdependence between people.

The second view is the usual problem of poverty’s blind rage. Rock music is one of the primary vehicles for expressing that rage. And clearly rage needs to be expressed. The streets are in fact one of the best forums. However, did burning down the ghetto cure poverty? Is the message of rock street music going to say we don’t care about other street artists- tough luck if that storyteller is too old to compete, so what if that classical duo is expecting a baby, I don’t care if the clubs are so racist that the Hispanic artists can’t play anywhere else…. Are we as a community going to allow rock music to be used as a tool of oppression?

Street Artists Code of Ethics

1. We acknowledge each individual’s First Amendment/Self Expression Rights with mutual respect and in cooperative spirit.

2. Spaces are allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis. Artists are encouraged to share spaces.

3. Artists should not set up within 50 feet of another artist(s) without first consulting with that artist(s). Rotating sets are encouraged in crowded situations.

4. Artists should generally not be heard more than a 50 foot radius from their performance site. Loud and amplified instruments/voices heard beyond 50 feet are considered an infringement upon other artists’ First Amendment/Self Expression Rights.

5. Artists using loud and amplified instruments/voices are encouraged to:

a. Find locations that conflict or interfere with the fewest artists and cause fewest community complaints.

b. Turn amplifiers/drums/loud instruments in toward walls and/or baffle with blankets to dampen and confine sounds to immediate area.

c. Schedule and/or rotate performance times that conflict or interfere with the fewest artists and cause fewest community complaints.

d. Consult with other street artists in immediate performing area about volume and seek mutual solutions.

6. Street artists acknowledge the importance of the streets and parks as an historic forum for all artists and community members, acknowledge the importance of the cultural diversity expressed on the streets and in parks, and acknowledge the importance of the street arts in the continuing growth of a world community.

---

Street Arts and Buskers Advocates

• Street Arts Advocates Email List
• Code of Ethics
• Legal Issues
  • Legal Court Citations article by Stephen Baird
    • Goldstein v. Town of Nantucket, 477 F. Supp., 606, (1979)
    • Davenport v Alexandria, VA 683 F2d 853 (1983), 710 F2d 148 (1983), 748 F2d 208 (1984)
    • Friedrich v Chicago 619 F. Supp., 1129. (D.C. Ill 1985)
    • Carew-Reid v. Metropolitan Transportation Auth., 903 F2d 914 (2nd Cir. 1990) (Subway)
    • Jews for Jesus v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (1991) (Subway)
    • Bery v. New York, 97 F. 3d 684 (2d Cir. 1996)
    • Turley v. NYC 988 F.Supp, 667 & 675 (1997). See US 2nd Cir Appeal 98-7114 (1999)
    • Perry v. LAPD, US 9th Cir Appeals 96-55545 (1997)
    • Horton v. St. Augustine, Florida US 11th Cir Appeal No. 00-16220 (2001)
    • Christopher Mastrovincinzo (a.k.a. “MASTRO”), and Kevin Santos (a.k.a. “NAC” OR “NAK”) v NEW YORK CITY 313 F SUPP 2D 280 (2004)
  • Boston Legal Battle 1972-2004
    • Overview with articles and photographs
    • Police Rule 75
    • FLASH NEWS: Federal Law Suit to protect rights of street artists in Boston
      • Complaint Motion
      • Preliminary Injunction Motion
      • Response From City of Boston
      • Reply and Second Memorandum
      • Federal Court Hearing December 17, 2004
      • City Repeals Police Rules and Regulations determined Unconstitutional in Federal Court on December 23, 2004
      • Issues and timeline
      • Media articles
      • Petition
  • Boston MBTA Subway Legal Battle 1986-2004
    • Overview with articles and photographs
    • December 2003 MBTA Restrictions Battle
    • Wesleyan University Olin Fellowship Thesis by Maggie Starr
    • MBTA-Radio Threatens Subway Performances October 2007
  • Cambridge Legal Battle 1973-2003
    • Overview with articles and photographs
    • Cambridge, MA Ordinance
  • Alexandria, Virginia Legal Battle 1982-1984
    • Overview with articles and photographs
    • Historical statement by Stephen Baird
    • Davenport v Alexandria, VA 683 F2d 853 (1983), 710 F2d 148 (1983), 748 F2d 208 (1984)
  • Baltimore, Maryland Legal Battle 2002 on
    • Overview with articles and photographs
  • Chicago Legal Battle 1982-1986
    • Overview with articles and photographs
    • Urban Studies Statement by Dr. Allan Schnaiberg, Professor of Sociology and Urban Affairs at Northwestern University
    • Friedrich v Chicago 619 F. Supp., 1129. (D.C. Ill 1985)
  • New Orleans Legal Battle
    • New Orleans Code
  • New York City Street Entertainers 1700 – 2005
    • Mayor LaGuadia bans New York City street entertainers 1935
    • South Street Seaport
  • Provincetown, Massachusetts Street Performers
  • Saint Augustine, Florida Legal Battle 1998 on
    • Horton v. St. Augustine, Florida US 11th Cir Appeal No. 00-16220 (2001)
  • Salt Lake City, Utah Legal Battle 2001 on
    • Salt Lake City, Utah Ordinance
  • Santa Cruz, California Legal Battle 1978-2003
    • Santa Cruz Street Performance Voluntary Guidelines
  • Seattle, Washington, 1974 on
  • Waikiki Street Performers Win Lawsuit 2002
  • The Malling of America: The Selling of America’s Public Parks and Streets–The Economic Censorship and Suppression of First Amendment Rights article by Stephen Baird
    • Citizens to End Animal Suffering v Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 65 (1990)
  • Amplification Ethics article by Stephen Baird
• Model Regulations introduction and three samples
  • Cambridge, MA
  • Worcester, MA
  • Chicago, IL
  • Hartford, CT
  • East Lansing, MI
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Toledo, OH
  • Santa Monica, CA
  • Sidewalk Democracy: Municipalities and the Regulation of Public Space
• Performance Locations
  • Introduction
  • North America
  • South America
  • Europe
  • Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Africa
• History and Cultural Impact of Street Performing in America
  • Avenues of Self Expression article by Stephen Baird
  • Ben Franklin on the Streets of Boston in 1718
  • Busking in Colonial Williamsburg in 1738
  • Rope Walking from Church Steeple in 1757
  • Patrick Henry and Sam Adams on the Revolutionary Streets
  • Nathaniel Hawthorne “All vagrants are interesting”
  • Boston Street Music 1869
  • Irving Berlin to George Burns–Immigrants Fill The Streets With Music
  • Bessie Smith, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Eubie Blake, Reverend Gary Davis, Louis Armstrong and the African American Diaspora on the Streets
  • Mayor La Guardia Bans Street Music in New York City in 1935
  • Hurdy-gurdy man Marino Persechini in Boston 1899-1974
  • Street Artists in Fine Arts Paintings, Photographs and Films
  • Books and References
    • Sidewalk Democracy: Municipalities and the Regulation of Public Space
  • Women Street Performers and Sexual Safety By Kirsten Anderberg
• History and Cultural Impact of Street Performing International
  • Germany 1990
  • “In Transit Railscapes” — India’s Street and Transit Music By Navin Thomas
• Links and References
  • General References
  • City and Government Regulation Web Sites
    • Sidewalk Democracy: Municipalities and the Regulation of Public Space
  • Individual Performer and Artists Web Sites
  • Professional Vaudeville Organization and School Web Sites
  • Busker and Street Performer Festival Web Sites
  • Performance Opportunities
  • Research Web Sites
• Street and Vaudeville Artists Directory Data Base
  • Mimes, Magicians, Musicians, Jugglers, Jesters, Sidewalk Chalk Artists, Clowns, Puppeteers, Storytellers and !!!
• Street Artists Photo-Journalism Project
  • Project Description
  • Consent and Release Agreement
  • The Photos
  • Introduction, Background and Services

Case Information

22-8-00057-23 | STATE OF WASHINGTON vs ZACKARY BUSBY

Case Number
22-8-00057-23

Court
Mason

File Date
10/28/2022

Case Type
JUV Juvenile Offender

Case Status
Active

Party

Plaintiff (Criminal)
STATE OF WASHINGTON

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyWilcox, Bailey James

---

---

Juvenile Respondent (WIP)
BUSBY, ZACKARY

DOB
XX/XX/2005

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyFinlay, Bruce J.

Retained

State’s Complaining Witness: Katherine K.

---

Charge

Charges
BUSBY, ZACKARY

		Description	Statute	Level	Date
	1	Rape 3rd Degree	9A.44.060	Felony C	04/29/2022

Events and Hearings

• 1 10/28/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
• 2 10/28/2022 Information View Document Information
• 3 11/01/2022 Arraignment Original Type
  Arraignment View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Result
  Held Parties Present Plaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Wilcox, Bailey James Juvenile Respondent (WIP): BUSBY, ZACKARY
• 4 11/01/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 5 11/01/2022 Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery View Document Notice of Appearance and Request for Discovery
• 6 11/01/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 7 11/08/2022 Arraignment Original Type
  Arraignment View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Result
  Held Parties PresentPlaintiff (Criminal): STATE OF WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney: Wilcox, Bailey James Juvenile Respondent (WIP): BUSBY, ZACKARY Attorney: Finlay, Bruce J.
• 8 11/08/2022 Dismissal Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine

Download them now before the miscreants remove them from public view–especially the ones documenting American soldiers murdering unarmed civilians in Baghdad, laughing about it during the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

COLLATERAL MURDER

Wikileaks Disgorges All Files to the Public

Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton’s emails, McCain’s being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic.

Hilary Clinton E-Mails

Wikileaks INDEX

State auditor: Mason County Fire District 12 misused nearly $200k in public funds

(Courtesy of Shawn Garrett, KIRO 7 News and Gwen Baumgardner, KIRO 7 News)

A fraud investigation report from the Washington State Auditor’s office revealed that nearly $200,000 in public funds were misappropriated by a Mason County fire chief and her secretary.

The state auditor recommended to the District to file a police report about the loss of public funds from January 1, 2017 through July 31, 2022, but as of Aug. 17, no police report had been filed.

The investigation, which began in September 2021, determined misappropriations involving payroll, credit card and other disbursements totaling $68,672 were made between October 2017 and July 2022.

Also, the report determined that auditors were unable to identify whether $95,093 in expenditures from May 2017 to July 2022 were for legitimate business purposes.

According to the report, the District only employs the fire chief and a secretary. The fire chief is responsible for managing the District’s financial operations, including payroll.

Additionally, the one of the Mason County commissioners is married to the District secretary. The fire chief is their daughter.

According to the report, the fire chief was hired as the temporary fire chief in April 2018, made permanent in August 2018, terminated by the board in May 2022, then immediately made temporary fire chief again.

The secretary, the fire chief’s mother, was hired in August 2020 and resigned in March 2022.

The fire chief is responsible for preparing two paychecks – one for herself and one for her mother, the secretary.

According to the report, the fire chief paid herself $2,973 in September 2019 as a vacation leave buyout, which was not allowed in her contract.

The fire chief also paid herself five additional paychecks in 2020 and three additional paychecks in 2021, totaling $20,364.

The report also said the fire chief paid herself several times in advance and received $2,982 in unsupported payroll payments.

The fire chief also received $37,104 in payroll payments after her contract was terminated in May 2022, including two questionable severance payments totaling $30,155.

According to the report, the secretary received two additional paychecks in 2020 and three additional paychecks in 2021, totaling $8,839.

After her resignation in March 2022, she received a buyout for vacation and sick leave totaling $3,875, and an additional $1,240 in questionable pay.

The commissioner, who is married to the Secretary, received three meeting paychecks for unknown reasons in 2020, totaling $693.

He also received 10 questionable payments totaling $10,100, of which $5,709 was for maintenance services. The report was unable to determine if these services were actually performed.

The report said the District has not reported quarterly payroll tax payments to the IRS since December 2018.

The fire chief is also responsible for the District’s credit card purchases and paying those balances.

A review of the credit card activity from January 1, 2017, to May 29, 2020, showed the District had not made a credit card payment since January 2020, and had an outstanding balance of $36,841 when the credit card was closed on May 29, 2020 for having the outstanding balance.

The report said the fire chief misappropriated $16,579 and is responsible for $13,941 for purchases that included televisions, movie and music streaming services, groceries, clothing, holiday dishware and personal items, including jewelry, hair spray and school supplies. The purchases also included $1,994 in plastic kitchen products that were delivered to members of her family.

The commissioner’s credit card was also used for $472 in prepaid cellular cards and a flooring supply purchase.

Additional employee reimbursements totaling $18,831 were also misappropriated by the fire chief. For example, $2,000 for “wildland supplies” and $500 for “picnic supplies” was not supported by any records.

Another $20,811 in payments were made to a cellular vendor. The fire chief bought six cellphones and six smart watches, and not only was the report not able to locate the items in the District’s possession, but there was no business purpose for 13 of the 16 phone lines.

In April 2022, the auditor’s office interviewed the fire chief and the commissioner, who said she did not know why she received more paychecks than usual or why some paychecks were issued in advance.

The fire chief also told investigators she bought groceries for holiday parties and a summer barbecue, but the auditor’s office pointed out several of the purchases were small enough to indicate personal usage and not party supplies. She said the groceries were actually for Saturday drills and snacks that were kept at the station and their vehicles.

The fire chief also said the credit card balance was paid each month and that she did not know why the District stopped using credit cards, and did not know about the outstanding balance or that the account was closed.

The commissioner said he did not know the fire chief received extra paychecks, or that the secretary (his wife) received extra paychecks.

The secretary never responded to interview requests from the auditor’s office.

In a written response to the allegations in the auditor’s report, the District said:

“The Board of Commissioners of Mason County Fire Protection District No. 12 is committed to operating transparently and in full compliance with the law. We appreciate the Auditor’s efforts in identifying areas of concern and the District is working to further investigate and address the allegations contained in this report.

“Given the short deadline for providing a response to this report, and not having access to the Auditor’s supporting documentation, the District is unable to provide a detailed factual response within the constraints of the Audit report format. The District is following the recommendation of the Auditor to investigate the allegations, is retaining an attorney to assist with further investigation into the allegations and the District will take appropriate action if it determines that any of the allegations are sustained.

“The Board of Commissioners recognizes that Auditor’s report of misappropriation and questionable expenditures is based primarily on an absence of supporting records. The Board of Commissioners is working to implement better record keeping processes and is working to improve its process of reviewing and approving expenditures to avoid similar issues in the future.

“The Board has already begun working with the IRS to bring the District into full compliance with all reporting requirements.

“The Board believes that once it has the chance to further investigate the allegations contained in the report the majority of the Auditor’s concerns will be addressed by the District’s investigation and the District is confident that the investigation will determine that no fraud occurred.”

The report said this case would be referred to the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the IRS for further consideration.

At Tuesday’s Mason County’s Board of Commissioners meeting, the audit was presented to the public by the auditor’s office, however no additional comments were made by District lawyer Brian Snure and referred to the written statement.

State auditor Pat McCarthy said, “I know it can be challenging to manage local government, but the issues we raised are all intended to serve your community.”

During the ending of the online meeting, several comments were seen on the screen from the Mason County community, however the board refused to hear public comments and quickly ended the meeting.

Case Information

19-2-03499-31 | Shaunessy Homeowners Association et al vs Richard Heng et al
Case Number
19-2-03499-31

Court
Snohomish

File Date
04/22/2019

Case Type
COM Commercial

Case Status
Completed/Re-Completed

Party

Plaintiff
Shaunessy Homeowners Association

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyMASCH, BRETT

Retained

---

Garnishee Defendant (Participant)
Department of Social & Health Services

---

Defendant
Heng, Richard

Active Attorneys
Pro Se

---

Defendant
Heng, Mary

Active Attorneys
Pro Se

---

Disposition Events

02/14/2020 Judgment

---

Judicial Officer
Farris, Anita L

Judgment Type
General Recovery

---

Monetary/Property Award

Creditors: Shaunessy Homeowners Association

Debtors: Heng, Mary

Signed Date: 02/14/2020

Filed Date: 02/14/2020

Effective Date: 02/14/2020

Current Judgment Status:

Status: Active

Status Date: 02/14/2020

Monetary Award:

Fee: Principal, Amount: $17,337.27 , Interest: 12.00 %

Total: $17,337.27

Comment

Comment ()

09/01/2020 Judgment

Judicial Officer
Brudvik, Jacalyn D

Judgment Type
General Recovery

Monetary/Property Award

Creditors: Shaunessy Homeowners Association

Debtors: Lexington Enterprises Inc, Heng, Richard

Signed Date: 08/28/2020

Filed Date: 09/01/2020

Effective Date: 09/01/2020

Current Judgment Status:

Status: Active

Status Date: 09/01/2020

Monetary Award:

Fee: Principal, Amount: $17,248.24 , Interest: 12.00 %

Total: $17,248.24

Comment

Comment ()

04/08/2022 Judgment

Judicial Officer
Moore, Karen

Judgment Type
General Recovery

Monetary/Property Award

Creditors: Shaunessy Homeowners Association

Debtors: Heng, Richard

Signed Date: 04/08/2022

Filed Date: 04/08/2022

Effective Date: 04/08/2022

Current Judgment Status:

Status: Active

Status Date: 04/08/2022

Monetary Award:

Fee: Principal, Amount: $26,661.87 , Interest: 12.00 %

Total: $26,661.87

Comment

Comment ()

---

Events and Hearings

• 1 04/22/2019 Summons View Document Summons
• 2 04/22/2019 Complaint View Document Complaint
• 3 04/22/2019 Case Information Cover Sheet View Document Case Information Cover Sheet
• 4 05/22/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 5 05/31/2019 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 6 05/31/2019 Amended Summons View Document Amended SummonsComment
  by Mail for Monies Due
• 7 06/18/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 8 06/20/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 9 06/20/2019 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 10 06/20/2019 Answer and Affirmative Defense View Document Answer and Affirmative Defense
• 11 06/24/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 12 07/29/2019 Motion for Default View Document Motion for Default
• 13 07/29/2019 Order of Default View Document Order of Default Judicial Officer
  Gaer, Susan C Comment
  (vacated as to Richard Heng 07/07/2021)
• 07/29/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 14 01/15/2020 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 15 01/15/2020 Motion for Summary Judgment View Document Motion for Summary Judgment
• 16 15 01/15/2020 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  Lisa McMahon-Myhran
• 17 01/15/2020 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
• 18 01/15/2020 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
• 19 01/15/2020 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 02/14/2020 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer
  Farris, Anita L Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Comment
  -Masch -CONFIRMED/MASCH
• 20 02/14/2020 Summary Judgment Hearing View Document Summary Judgment HearingJudicial Officer
  Farris, Anita L
• 21 02/14/2020 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law View Document Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
• 22 02/14/2020 Order Granting Summary Judgment View Document Order Granting Summary Judgment Comment
  as to Mary Heng
• 23 09/01/2020 Motion for Default Judgment View Document Motion for Default Judgment
• 24 09/01/2020 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Tom Gish
• 25 09/01/2020 Default Judgment View Document Default JudgmentJudicial Officer
  Brudvik, Jacalyn D Comment
  (vacated as to Richard Heng)
• 09/01/2020 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 26 02/11/2021 Writ of Garnishment View Document Writ of Garnishment
• 03/05/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 27 03/26/2021 Answer to Writ View Document Answer to Writ
• 28 05/07/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 29 05/10/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment
  of Mary Heng
• 30 05/10/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment
  of Richard Heng
• 31 05/10/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Sophie Bo
• 32 05/10/2021 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show CauseComment
  and Motion to Vacate Default Judgement
• 33 05/11/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 34 05/11/2021 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause Comment
  & motion to vacate default judgment
• 35 05/11/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Mary Heng
• 36 05/11/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Sophie Bo
• 37 05/11/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Richard Heng
• 38 05/11/2021 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show CauseJudicial Officer
  Waggoner, Tracy G
• 05/11/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 39 05/19/2021 Acceptance of Service View Document Acceptance of Service
• 40 06/04/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 41 06/04/2021 Response View Document Response Comment
  to motion to vacate
• 42 06/04/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 43 06/04/2021 Stipulation View Document Stipulation Comment
  for electronic service
• 44 06/08/2021 Reply View Document Reply Comment
  declaration of Richard Heng
• 45 06/08/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Mary Heng / supplemental
• 46 06/08/2021 Memorandum View Document Memorandum Comment
  in strict reply
• 06/09/2021 Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Waggoner, Tracy G Hearing Time
  10:30 AMComment
  on motion to vacate default judgment -CONFIRMED/EHRLICH
• 47 06/09/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer
  Waggoner, Tracy G
• 48 06/09/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer
  Waggoner, Tracy G
• 06/09/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 49 06/18/2021 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
• 50 06/18/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 51 06/25/2021 Response View Document Response Comment
  to motion for revision
• 52 06/25/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 53 06/28/2021 Reply View Document Reply Comment
  to Response to Revision/Dfdt’s
• 54 06/28/2021 Affidavit of Mailing View Document Affidavit of Mailing
• 55 06/29/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 56 06/29/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Daniel Ehrlich
• 06/30/2021 Revision Judicial Officer
  Appel, George F Hearing Time
  9:15 AM Cancel Reason
  Defense/Respondent Requested Comment
  **As noted.-CONFIRMED/EHRLICH -STRICKEN/EHRLICH
• 06/30/2021 Hearing Cancelled Unknown Party
• 07/07/2021 Revision Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Hearing Time
  9:30 AM.Comment
  Oral Argument requested by Judge. Please appear at 9:30 am. -CONFIRMED/EHRLICH
• 57 07/07/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen
• 58 07/07/2021 Order Revising Ruling View Document Order Revising Ruling Comment
  order of default against Richard Heng dated 07/29/2019 and default judgment filed 09/01/2020 is vacated as to Richard Heng
• 59 07/09/2021 Release View Document Release Comment
  of writ ISSUED 2/11/21 TO WA STATE DSHS
• 60 10/18/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 61 10/18/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 62 10/18/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Shean Nasin
• 63 10/18/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Lisa McMahon-Myhran
• 64 10/18/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  of Brett Masch
• 65 10/18/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment View Document Motion for Summary Judgment
• 66 11/03/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 67 11/03/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment View Document Motion for Summary Judgment
• 68 11/03/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Lisa McMahon-Myhran
• 69 11/03/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Shean Nasin
• 70 11/03/2021 Affidavit in Support View Document Affidavit in Support Comment
  of Brett Masch
• 71 11/03/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 72 11/10/2021 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment
  to Amend Case Caption & Amend Complaint
• 73 11/10/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 74 11/10/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 11/19/2021 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer
  Judge, Millie M Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Cancel Reason
  Stricken Comment
  – Masch
• 75 11/22/2021 Memorandum View Document MemorandumComment
  in Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
• 76 11/23/2021 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
• 77 11/29/2021 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney Comment
  Amended
• 78 11/30/2021 Motion to Continue View Document Motion to Continue
• 79 11/30/2021 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Moriarty, Patrick M
• 11/30/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 12/01/2021 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moriarty, Patrick M Hearing Time
  10:30 AM Comment
  to Change Case Caption -CONFIRMED/MASCH
• 12/01/2021 Hearing Continued Stipulated Comment
  Continued to 12-22
• 80 12/03/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 81 12/03/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 82 12/03/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment
  – Amended
• 83 12/03/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 12/22/2021 Motion to Amend Judicial Officer
  Moriarty, Patrick M Hearing Time
  10:30 AM Cancel Reason
  Duplicate Hearing Comment
  caption
• 12/22/2021 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moriarty, Patrick M Hearing Time
  10:30 AM Comment
  to change case caption- CONFIRMED/MASCH
• 84 12/22/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moriarty, Patrick M
• 85 12/22/2021 Order Granting Leave to Amend View Document Order Granting Leave to Amend Comment
  case caption & complaint
• 86 12/29/2021 Amended Summons View Document Amended Summons
• 87 12/29/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 88 12/29/2021 Reply View Document Reply Comment
  to memorandum in response to motion for summary judgment
• 89 12/30/2021 Amended Complaint View Document Amended Complaint
• 90 01/04/2022 Response View Document ResponseComment
  to Motion for Summary Judgment
• 91 01/04/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
• 92 01/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 93 01/06/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Thompson, Paul W
• 01/06/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 94 01/11/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 95 01/18/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment
  – Amended
• 96 01/18/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 97 01/24/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 98 02/04/2022 Note for Motion Docket Late Filing View Document Note for Motion Docket Late Filing Comment
  **Date passed, 03/30/21.
• 99 02/04/2022 Motion to Continue View Document Motion to Continue
• 100 02/04/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
• 101 02/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance Comment
  – Amended
• 102 02/10/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 103 02/15/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment
  – Amended
• 104 02/15/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 02/17/2022 Motion to Continue Judicial Officer
  Appel, George F Hearing Time
  9:15 AM Cancel Reason
  Stricken-Not Confirmed Comment
  Hearing from February 18, 2022 to March 18, 2022
• 02/17/2022 Hearing Cancelled Unknown Party
• 02/18/2022 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer
  Okrent, Richard T Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Cancel Reason
  Duplicate Hearing Comment
  – Masch
• 105 03/14/2022 Reply View Document ReplyComment
  to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
• 106 03/14/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 107 03/14/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
• 03/18/2022 Summary Judgment Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Comment
  /Masch -CONT 12/3/21 PER MASCH – CONT 01/07 PER MASCH -CONT FROM 2/18/22 PER MASCH-CONFIRMED/MASCH Oral argument requested by Court
• 108 03/18/2022 Summary Judgment Hearing View Document Summary Judgment Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen
• 109 03/18/2022 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Comment
  for Summary Judgment ***VACATED 04/08/2022***
• 110 03/28/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration
• 111 03/28/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 112 03/28/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 04/08/2022 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Hearing Time
  9:30 AM Comment
  Motion for Reconsideration
• 113 04/08/2022 Motion View Document MotionComment
  for Extension of Time
• 114 04/08/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen
• 115 04/08/2022 Order on Motion for Reconsideration View Document Order on Motion for Reconsideration Comment
  /granted, vacating order entered 03/18/2022 and granting pltfs motion for summary judgment
• 04/08/2022 Case Resolution Summary Judgment
• 116 04/19/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration
• 117 04/19/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment
  of Summary Judgment
• 118 05/02/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 119 05/04/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment
  of Summary Judgment-Amended
• 05/06/2022 Reconsideration Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Hearing Time
  10:00 AM Comment
  Motion for Reconsideration (w/o Oral Arg)
• 120 05/16/2022 Order on Motion for Reconsideration View Document Order on Motion for Reconsideration Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Comment
  denied
• 05/16/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order
• 121 05/27/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration
• 122 05/27/2022 Writ of Garnishment View Document Writ of Garnishment
• 123 06/09/2022 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar
• 06/17/2022 Reconsideration Judicial Officer
  Moore, Karen Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Comment
  2nd motion
• 124 06/17/2022 Motion for Reconsideration View Document Motion for Reconsideration Comment
  /amended second
• 125 06/17/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer
  Moore, Karen
• 126 06/24/2022 Answer to Writ View Document Answer to Writ
• 127 06/28/2022 Order on Motion for Reconsideration View Document Order on Motion for ReconsiderationJudicial Officer
  Moore, KarenComment
  -Denied
• 06/28/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order

Kiona Park Estates v. Dehls

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

April 6, 2021, Oral Argument; July 7, 2021, Filed

No. 54477-6-IIReporter
18 Wn. App. 2d 328 | 491 P.3d 247 | 2021 Wash. App. LEXIS 1665

Kiona Park Estates, Respondent, v. Avera Lee Dehls et al., Appellants.

Prior History:

Appeal from Lewis County Superior Court. Docket No: 18-2-01287-1. Judge signing: Honorable J Andrew Toynbee. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 01/08/2020.

Headnotes/Summary

Summary
WASHINGTON OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY

Nature of Action: A homeowners’ association sued a member for damages and foreclosure on all past liens and past due balances owing on dues assessments unpaid since 2002.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 18-2-01287-1, J. Andrew Toynbee, J., on January 8, 2020, entered a summary judgment in favor of the association.

Court of Appeals: Holding that (1) the action was subject to the six-year limitation period of RCW 4.16.040, (2) each annual dues assessment was a discreet claim, and (3) the association was therefore entitled to collect unpaid dues only from 2013 to 2018, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.

Counsel:Christi C. Goeller, for appellants.

Kelly A. Delaat-Maher (of Smith Alling PS), for respondent.

Judges: Authored by Lisa Sutton. Concurring: Lisa Worswick, Linda Lee.

Opinion by: Lisa Sutton

Opinion

¶1 Sutton, J. — Avera Dehls appeals the superior court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment to the Kiona Park Estates Association (Association) to enforce a recorded lien for Dehls’s unpaid annual homeowners’ association (HOA) dues from 2002 to 2018. This case presents an issue of first impression: which statute of limitations applies to an action to enforce a HOA’s lien where chapter 64.38 RCW, the governing chapter for HOAs, does not contain a limitations period.

¶2 We hold that the applicable statute of limitations is six years under RCW 4.16.040 because the governing documents are written agreements. We further hold that each annual HOA dues assessment is a discrete claim. Accordingly, based on the six-year limitations period, the Association is entitled to collect unpaid dues from Dehls for only the time period 2013 to 2018. Thus, we hold that the superior court erred by granting the Association summary judgment for the entire amount of unpaid dues from 2003 to 2018. We reverse the court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment, and we remand to the superior court to vacate the judgment and order and to enter an amended judgment and order consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

I. Background Facts

¶3 The Association is a Washington nonprofit corporation. It was formed to, among other things, collect dues and assessments from its membership and to enforce the covenants and restrictions in a development known as Kiona Park Estates.

¶4 The Association’s governing documents are the original “Declaration of Protective Covenants and Easements,” the 1986 “Restated Declaration of Protective Covenants and Easements” (collectively Declarations), and the “Articles of Incorporation”; the Restated Declaration has been amended during the relevant time period.1 Articles C and D of the Declarations grant authority to the Association to assess dues against each member of the Association for maintenance, and provide that any unpaid dues become a lien. The dues are required to be paid in January of each year. The dues amount was $150 per year in 2002, $200 per year from 2003 to 2017, and $250 per year beginning in 2018.

¶5 Section C(2)(a) of the Declarations states, in relevant part, “Any dues that remain unpaid for a period of ninety (90) days shall become a lien against the defaulting lot owner’s property enforceable as any other real estate lien in the State of Washington.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 85, 98, 115. The Association’s Articles of Incorporation state, “Delinquent dues and assessments will constitute a lien upon the parcel(s) of real property owned by the delinquent member of the corporation,” consistent with the provisions of the Declarations. CP at 133. Article E, section 2 states that the “parties in interest” have the right to enforce the Declarations. CP at 60, 72, 99-100. Association bylaws adopted in 2001 and amended in 2017 also support the HOA’s right and ability to assess an owner for dues and take enforcement action against an owner for unpaid dues in the form of a lien or collection.

¶6 Dehls purchased real property in the Kiona Park Estates development in 1989 and is a member of the Association. Since 2001, Dehls has failed to make payments to the Association as required by the Declarations, and he became delinquent beginning in January 2002. The Association filed and recorded liens against Dehls’s property in 2003, 2006, and 2018. The 2003 lien was for dues owed for 2002 and 2003. The 2006 lien referred only to dues owed in 2004 and 2005, as well as attorney fees. The 2018 lien aggregated all the dues Dehls owed beginning in 2002, stating that Dehls was “in arrears of annual membership dues and assessments, interest, and/or late charges in the amount of $10,041.67,” plus attorney fees in the amount of $368.02, for a total owed of $10,409.69. CP at 38.

II. Procedural Facts

¶7 The Association filed a complaint against Dehls in November 2018, seeking damages and foreclosure on all the past liens and past due balances. Dehls answered the complaint and asserted the affirmative defense of statute of limitations.

¶8 In June 2019, the Association filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that Dehls breached his duties under the Declarations. In support of its motion, the Association filed declarations from its attorney, treasurer, and president. The Association filed, among other documents, the Declarations in their current and past versions, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Association’s ledger outlining the amounts Dehls owed plus interest accrued, for a total amount due of $7,101.00. Dehls opposed this motion and argued that the Association could not collect the past dues from 2002 because the Declarations are contracts and, thus, the 6-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.040 applied. The Association replied that it was not subject to a 6-year statute of limitations because the Declarations and Articles of Incorporation were not “contracts,” but either were more akin to an open account under RCW 4.16.150 or were subject to a 10-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.120.

¶9 The superior court granted the Association’s motion for summary judgment. The court awarded the Association $7,101.00 for past dues, as well as $7,143.74 in attorney fees and $1,046.00 in costs. Dehls filed a motion for reconsideration, which the superior court denied.

¶10 Dehls appeals the superior court’s judgment and order granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment and denying Dehls’s motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS

I. Summary Judgment

¶11 Dehls argues that the superior court erred by granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment because the Declarations constitute a contract or written agreement and, thus, the six-year statute of limitations under RCW 4.16.040 applies, barring the Association’s claim to enforce liens prior to 2013. We hold that the six-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.040 applies because the debt arose from the Declarations, which are written agreements. Thus, the superior court erred by granting summary judgment in the Association’s favor for dues owed for the period of 2002 to 2012.

A. Legal Principles

1. Summary Judgment

¶12 We review summary judgment decisions de novo. Zonnebloem, LLC v. Blue Bay Holdings, LLC, 200 Wn. App. 178, 182, 401 P.3d 468 (2017). Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). Here, the materials facts are undisputed.

2. Governing Documents

¶13 An HOA’s governing documents are interpreted in accordance with accepted rules of contract interpretation. See Bangerter v. Hat Island Cmty. Ass’n, 14 Wn. App. 2d 718, 735, 472 P.3d 998 (2020), review granted, 196 Wn.2d 1037 (2021); see also RCW 64.38.010(10). Contract interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Dave Johnson Ins., Inc. v. Wright, 167 Wn. App. 758, 769, 275 P.3d 339 (2012). “The purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the parties’ intent.” Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm’n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 274, 279 P.3d 943 (2012). Washington courts follow the context rule of contract interpretation, which allows a court, while viewing the contract as a whole, to consider extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274. We consider a corporation’s governing documents, including articles of incorporation and bylaws, “correlated documents” to be construed together as a whole. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274.

¶14 Contractual language generally must be given its ordinary, usual, and popular meaning. Jensen v. Lake Jane Estates, 165 Wn. App. 100, 105, 267 P.3d 435 (2011). “An interpretation of a contract that gives effect to all provisions is favored over an interpretation that renders a provision ineffective.” Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. FirstGroup Am., Inc., 173 Wn.2d 829, 840, 271 P.3d 850 (2012). And “[w]here one construction would make a contract unreasonable, and another, equally consistent with its language, would make it reasonable, the latter more rational construction must prevail.” Byrne v. Ackerlund, 108 Wn.2d 445, 453-54, 739 P.2d 1138 (1987). Here, the relevant governing documents are the Declarations as amended.

3. Restrictive Covenants

¶15 Dehls argues that the governing documents constitute a restrictive covenant. A “restrictive covenant” is an agreement or promise between two or more parties that limits permissible uses of land. See Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 683, 690, 974 P.2d 836 (1999); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.3, at 23 (Am. Law Inst. 2000). When the covenant “runs with the land,” it burdens a particular parcel with the duty of complying with the restriction and benefits of a particular parcel with the right to enforce the restriction. Deep Water Brewing, LLC v. Fairway Res. Ltd., 152 Wn. App. 229, 257-58, 215 P.3d 990 (2009); 17 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington Practice: Real Estate: Property Law § 3.2 (2d ed. 2004). “The doctrine of ‘running’ is analogous to the contract doctrines of assignment of rights and delegation of duties; it is a doctrine whereby remote parties are bound or benefited by contractual covenants made by the original parties.” 17 Stoebuck & Weaver, supra, § 3.2, at 126.

¶16 Between the original parties to the covenant, enforcement is a matter of contract law. Deep Water Brewing, 152 Wn. App. at 257. If the covenant runs with the land, it may also be enforced by the original parties’ successors in interest. Deep Water Brewing, 152 Wn. App. at 257-58.

4. Statute of Limitations and Accrual of an Action

¶17 A statute of limitations is designed to protect individuals and courts from stale claims. Burns v. McClinton, 135 Wn. App. 285, 293, 143 P.3d 630 (2006). As an affirmative defense, the statute of limitations is a matter on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. See Haslund v. City of Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 620-21, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976). Where the underlying facts are not in dispute, whether a case was filed within the statute of limitations period is a question of law to be determined by a judge. Goodman v. Goodman, 128 Wn.2d 366, 373, 907 P.2d 290 (1995). We review questions of law de novo. Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Ass’n of Centre Pointe Condo., 184 Wn.2d 170, 173, 355 P.3d 1128 (2015).

¶18 HOAs are governed by chapter 64.38 RCW. However, the legislature has imposed no statute of limitations to dictate actions arising out of this chapter. In contrast, the legislature imposed a three-year statute of limitations for actions arising out of the Condominium Act,2 and later imposed a six-year statute of limitations for actions arising out of the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.3 RCW 64.34.364(8); RCW 64.90.485(9).

¶19 RCW 4.16.040(1) states that “[a]n action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written agreement” has a six-year statute of limitations. “A cause of action generally accrues for purposes of the commencement of the statute of limitation when a party has a right to apply to court for relief.” Bush v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 23 Wn. App. 327, 329, 596 P.2d 1357 (1979).

B. Analysis

¶20 It is undisputed that the Declarations are the governing HOA documents. Accordingly, the governing documents are interpreted via contract rules. See Bangerter, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 735; RCW 64.38.010(10). And the parties’ intent was that members of the Association would pay dues in order to receive the benefit of certain maintenance and easements. Roats, 169 Wn. App. at 274. This is clear from the plain meaning of the contractual language. Jensen, 165 Wn. App. at 105. The Association, as the HOA, sued Dehls to enforce the Declarations, which are written agreements. Because this action arises out of a written agreement—the Declarations—RCW 4.16.040 applies, and the statute of limitations to enforce an HOA lien or unpaid HOA dues is six years.

¶21 The Association argues that RCW 4.16.020 applies. RCW 4.16.020 establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for recovery of an interest in real property. This does not apply here because it was not an action for recovery of an interest in real property. The Association does not seek to recover Dehls’s property; rather, it seeks only to recover the dues owed to it by Dehls.

¶22 The Association also argues that RCW 4.16.150, which deals with open and mutual accounts, applies. RCW 4.16.150 provides:

In an action brought to recover a balance due upon a mutual open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued from the time of the last item proved in the account on either side, but whenever a period of more than one year shall have elapsed between any of a series of items or demands, they are not to be deemed such an account.

“An open account is one in which some item of contract is not settled by the parties. Typically, the account results from ongoing sales of goods, supplies, or materials, but may also result from ongoing rendition of services or advancement of money, comprising mutual credits between the parties.” 27 Marjorie Dick Rombauer, Washington Practice: Creditors’ Remedies—Debtors’ Relief § 5.47, at 522-23 (1998) (footnote omitted). And “[a]n account is not mutual if it consists of items provided on separate contracts without reciprocal demands.” 27 Rombauer, at 523 n.7 (citing Hills v. City of Hoquiam, 94 Wash. 63, 161 P. 1049 (1916)).

¶23 RCW 4.16.150 does not apply here because Dehls’s unpaid dues are not an open and mutual account. This was not a matter of a contract remaining unsettled by a party. Rather, each yearly dues assessment was a discrete amount owed to the Association. The dues assessment was due on a yearly basis, and the amount of the dues periodically increased. The dues owed each year were for services to be provided by the Association in the coming year.

¶24 Articles C and D of the Declarations provide for common expenses owed by each member of the Association annually, and any unpaid expenses become a lien. The dues are due each year in January. In 2002, the dues were $150 per year, and from 2003 to 2017, the dues were $200 per year. The dues went up to $250 per year beginning in 2018. Discrete annual dues amounts were due 90 days after each year’s dues were assessed; on the 91st day, the cause of action accrued and the statute of limitations began to run on each discrete dues assessment.

¶25 Dehls does not dispute that the Association had the authority through the governing documents to seek enforcement of the 2013 to 2018 dues. Since 2002, Dehls never paid his annual dues, and the Association filed and recorded three liens against his property in 2003, 2006, and 2018. At the time the Association filed this lawsuit in 2018, Dehls’s dues totaled $7,101.00, plus interest accrued from 2003 on. But because the six-year statute of limitations began to run each year on the 91st day after Dehls received his dues statement, the Association can seek enforcement of the unpaid annual dues only for the years 2013 through 2018.

¶26 Therefore, the superior court erred by granting summary judgment to the Association in regard to the 2002-2012 dues, but it properly granted summary judgment to the Association in regard to the 2013-2018 unpaid dues. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

II. Appellate Attorney Fees and Costs

¶27 Both parties argue that they are entitled to an award of reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs. Because neither party can be perceived as the prevailing party on appeal, we deny both parties’ requests.

¶28 RAP 18.1(a) authorizes a party to recover reasonable attorney fees and expenses so long as the party “request[s] the fees or expenses” and “applicable law grants to [the] party the right to recover.” The party must do so in a separate section of his or her opening brief. RAP 18.1(b). We will award attorney fees to the prevailing party “only on the basis of a private agreement, a statute, or a recognized ground of equity.” Equitable Life Leasing Corp. v. Cedarbrook, Inc., 52 Wn. App. 497, 506, 761 P.2d 77 (1988). “When both parties to an action are afforded some measure of relief and there is no singularly prevailing party,” neither party is entitled to attorney fees. Marine Enters., Inc. v. Sec. Pac. Trading Corp., 50 Wn. App. 768, 772, 750 P.2d 1290 (1988).

¶29 The Declarations provide a right to attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in any legal actions. Because there is no prevailing party on appeal, we deny both parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶30 We reverse the court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment, and we remand to the superior court to vacate the judgment and order and enter an amended judgment and order consistent with this opinion.

Lee, C.J., and Worswick, J., concur.

References

LexisNexis Practice Guide: Washington Real Estate Litigation

Washington Rules of Court Annotated (LexisNexis ed.)

Annotated Revised Code of Washington by LexisNexisFootnotes

• 1We consider a corporation’s governing documents, including articles of incorporation and bylaws, “correlated documents” to be construed together as a whole. Roats v. Blakely Island Maint. Comm’n, Inc., 169 Wn. App. 263, 274, 279 P.3d 943 (2012).
• 2Ch. 64.34 RCW.
• 3Ch. 64.90 RCW.

Case Information

21-3-00301-18 | MATTHEW S GOODMAN vs JULIA F BRYANT
Case Number
21-3-00301-18

Court
Kitsap

File Date
04/01/2021

Case Type
PPS Parenting Plan/Child Support

Case Status
Active

Party

Respondent (WIP)
BRYANT, JULIA F

DOB
XX/XX/1990

Petitioner (WIP)
GOODMAN, MATTHEW S

DOB
XX/XX/1978

Inactive AttorneysPro Se

---

Minor (WIP)
VICTIM, JUVENILE

---

Guardian ad Litem
RYDER, MICHELLE

Events and Hearings

• 1 04/01/2021 Case Information Cover Sheet View Document Case Information Cover Sheet
• 04/01/2021 Confidential Information Form
• 2 04/01/2021 Motion for Waiver of Fees View Document Motion for Waiver of Fees
• 3 04/01/2021 Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis View Document Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina
• 04/01/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina
• 4 04/01/2021 Agreement View Document Agreement Comment
  FINANCIAL OBLIGATION
• 5 04/01/2021 Summons and Petition for Parenting Plan Res Schedule View Document Summons and Petition for Parenting Plan Res Schedule
• 04/01/2021 Cover Sealed Birth Certificate or Paternity Document
• 6 04/01/2021 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
• 04/01/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 7 04/01/2021 Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause View Document Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause
• 8 04/01/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Comment
  4/13/21 @ 9:00 PATERNITY – RESTRAINTS
• 9 04/01/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Comment
  COURT SIGNS ORDER
• 10 04/05/2021 Correspondence View Document Correspondence Comment
  CLERK TO SEATTLE PD
• 11 04/05/2021 Temporary Restraining Order View Document Temporary Restraining Order Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D
• 12 04/06/2021 Sheriffs Return on Service View Document Sheriffs Return on Service
• 13 04/08/2021 Ex Parte View Document Paternity Officer
  Robinson, Tina Hearing Time
  8:30 AMResult
  Held Parties Present Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 14 04/08/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Paternity Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Comment
  COURT DENIES MOTION
• 15 04/08/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 16 04/08/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  OF AMY BRYANT
• 17 04/08/2021 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 18 04/08/2021 M0t Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause View Document Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause
• 19 04/08/2021 Motion View Document Motion Comment
  TO QUASH IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER
• 20 04/08/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 21 04/08/2021 Copy View Document Copy Comment
  NEWS ARTICLES RE: MATTHEW GOODMAN
• 22 04/08/2021 Copy View Document Copy Comment
  CRIMINAL HISTORY OF MATTHEW GOODMAN
• 23 04/08/2021 Copy View Document Copy Comment
  PHOTOS OF MATTHEW GOODMAN
• 04/08/2021 Sealed Confidential Reports Cover Sheet
• 24 04/08/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Comment
  FOR RESTRAINTS
• 25 04/08/2021 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Comment
  TO QUASH IMMEDIATE RESTRAINING ORDER
• 04/09/2021 Ex Parte Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 26 04/09/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  COURT ORDERS RETURN OF CHILD TO MOTHER; CONTINUES 4/13/21 HEARING TO 4/20/21 @ 9:00 AM
• 27 04/09/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  04/20/2021 @ 9:00 AM; PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
• 28 04/13/2021 Email View Document Email Comment
  CLERK TO KCSO
• 29 04/19/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 30 04/19/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 04/20/2021 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Continued Comment
  RESTRAINTSParties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 04/20/2021 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Held Comment
  RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 31 04/20/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  MATTER CONTINUED; COURT SIGNS ORDER EXTENDING RESTRAINTS
• 32 04/20/2021 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  5/18/21 @ 9:00 PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS (ALREADY SET PER #32)
• 33 04/23/2021 Email View Document Email Comment
  CLERK TO KCSO
• 34 04/29/2021 Response View Document Response
• 35 05/10/2021 Note for Calendar View Document Note for Calendar Comment
  5/28/21 @ 9:00 SET SETT CONF
• 05/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 05/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 36 05/17/2021 Objection Opposition View Document Objection Opposition Comment
  TO PETITIONER’S LATE FILED RESPONSIVE MATERIALS
• 05/18/2021 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Held Comment
  RESTRAINTSParties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 37 05/18/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  COURT GRANTS MOTION IN PART/ ORDER TO BE PRESENTED
• 38 05/18/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  IN RESPONSE
• 05/28/2021 Settlement Conference Hearing Time
  9:00 AM
• 39 05/28/2021 Notice of Change of Address View Document Notice of Change of Address
• 40 05/28/2021 Settlement Conference Setting View Document Settlement Conference Setting Comment
  SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE JULY 28, 2021 AT 1:30
• 06/04/2021 Presentation of Order Original Type
  Presentation of Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Stricken
• 06/04/2021 Hearing Stricken In Court NonAppearance
• 41 07/13/2021 Temporary Order View Document Temporary Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L
• 07/28/2021 Settlement Conference Original Type Settlement Conference Judicial Officer
  Robinson, Tina Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Held Comment
  ZFL2
• 42 07/28/2021 Financial Declaration of Petitioner View Document Financial Declaration of Petitioner
• 43 07/28/2021 Assignment of Trial Date View Document Assignment of Trial Date Comment
  DECEMBER 7, 2021 AT 9AM
• 07/28/2021 Settlement Conference Hearing Held
• 44 09/27/2021 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
• 45 12/01/2021 Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel View Document Notice Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel Comment
  SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEY: KATE MOGLIA
• 46 12/03/2021 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D Comment
  AGREED; TRIAL 3/29/22 AT 9AM
• 47 12/13/2021 Ex Parte Original Type
  Ex ParteView Document Paternity Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D Hearing Time
  8:30 AM Result
  Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
• 48 12/13/2021 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D Comment
  12/28/21 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
• 12/13/2021 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D
• 49 12/13/2021 Motion Hearing View Document PaternityJudicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D Comment
  COURT GRANTS JOINT DECISION MAKING, DISCLOSURE OF MED RECORDS, AND VISITS AT HOSPITAL; 12/28/21 @ 9:00 AM
• 50 12/13/2021 Email View Document Email Comment
  CLERK TO KCSO
• 51 12/13/2021 Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause View Document Mot Declr for Ex Parte Restraining Order Order to Show Cause
• 52 12/13/2021 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  IN SUPPORT OF RESTRAINING ORDER
• 12/13/2021 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 53 12/14/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 12/28/2021 Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Cancel Reason
  Calendar Conflict Comment
  RESTRAINTS
• 12/29/2021 Ex Parte Original Type
  Ex Parte Judicial Officer
  Bassett, Jeffrey P Hearing Time
  8:30 AM Result
  Held
• 54 12/29/2021 Return of Service View Document Return of Service Comment
  KCSO
• 55 12/29/2021 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer
  Bassett, Jeffrey P Comment
  1/4/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
• 01/04/2022 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Continued Comment
  RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
• 56 01/04/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  MATTER CONT’D / ORDER SIGNED
• 57 01/04/2022 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  1/18/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – RESTRAINTS
• 58 01/06/2022 Return of Service View Document Return of Service Comment
  KCSO 1/5/22
• 01/18/2022 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Held Comment
  RESTRAINTS Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
• 59 01/18/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  RESTRAINTS DENIED
• 60 01/18/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 61 02/01/2022 Motion Appointing Guardian Ad Litem View Document Motion Appointing Guardian Ad Litem
• 62 02/01/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
• 02/01/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 63 02/01/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
  2/15/22 AT 9AM – PARENTAGE – MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
• 64 02/01/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
  2/18/22 AT 1:30PM – DEPARTMENTAL MLC – PRESENTATION OF ORDER
• 65 02/03/2022 Motion for Temporary Order View Document Motion for Temporary Order
• 66 02/03/2022 Motion for Temporary Order View Document Motion for Temporary Order
• 67 02/03/2022 Child Support Worksheet Proposed View Document Child Support Worksheet Proposed
• 68 02/03/2022 Financial Declaration of Respondent View Document Financial Declaration of Respondent
• 69 02/03/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment
  2/22/22 @ 9:00 PARENTAGE – TEMP ORDER
• 70 02/08/2022 Objection Opposition View Document Objection Opposition Comment
  TO PROPOSED ORDER
• 71 02/08/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  RESPONSIVE TO MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
• 72 02/11/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
  2/28/22 @ 9:00 SPECIAL SET – MOTION TO APPOINT GAL
• 02/15/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type
  Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Stricken Comment
  TO APPOINT GAL
• 02/15/2022 Hearing Stricken Not Confirmed and Not Heard
• 73 02/17/2022 Child Support Worksheet Proposed View Document Child Support Worksheet Proposed
• 74 02/17/2022 Financial Declaration of Petitioner View Document Financial Declaration of Petitioner
• 02/17/2022 Sealed Financial Source Documents
• 75 02/17/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment
  RESPONSIVE RE: MOTION FOR TEMP ORDER
• 02/18/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type
  Presentation of Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Held
• 76 02/18/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 77 02/18/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  COURT GRANTS / SIGNS AGREED ORDER
• 78 02/18/2022 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L
• 02/22/2022 Temporary Order Original Type
  Temporary Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Held Parties PresentPetitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 79 02/22/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  MOTION GRANTED / ORAL RULING
• 02/28/2022 Motion Hearing Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Cancel Reason
  Stricken Comment
  MOTION TO APPT GAL
• 80 02/28/2022 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
• 81 02/28/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
  3/18/22 @ 2:30 DOM PRES – REVISION
• 82 03/03/2022 Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem View Document Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem Judicial Officer
  Hull, Kevin D
• 03/18/2022 Revision Judicial Officer
  Olsen, Sally F Hearing Time
  2:30 PM
• 83 04/21/2022 Notice of Absence Unavailability View Document Notice of Absence Unavailability
• 84 04/22/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
• 85 04/22/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 86 05/03/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment
  OF EMAILS RE AGREEMENT
• 87 05/03/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment
  5/20/22 AT 1:30 W/ MLC – PRESENTATION OF ORDERS
• 88 05/03/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 89 05/10/2022 Motion View Document Motion Comment
  FOR ATTORNEY WITHDRAW
• 90 05/10/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment
  05/24/2022 @ 9AM
• 05/20/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type
  Presentation of Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Continued Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 91 05/20/2022 Request for Continuance View Document Request for Continuance Comment
  & MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTION
• 92 05/20/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  COURT CONTINUES HEARING; 5/24/2022 @ 9:00 AM
• 05/24/2022 Approve Petition Original Type
  Approve Petition Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Held Comment
  / PRESENTATION (CONTINUED FROM 5/20/2022) Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F Guardian ad Litem: RYDER, MICHELLE
• 93 05/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L Comment
  COURT GRANTS MOTION AND SIGNS ORDER
• 94 05/24/2022 Temporary Order of Child Support View Document Temporary Order of Child Support Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L
• 95 05/24/2022 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer
  Clucas, Matthew L
• 96 06/03/2022 Motion for Revision View Document Motion for Revision
• 97 06/03/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 06/03/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 98 06/06/2022 Note for Motion Docket View Document Note for Motion Docket Comment
  6/24/22 AT 2:30PM – DOMESTIC PRESIDING – MOTION FOR REVISION
• 06/07/2022 Non-Jury Trial Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Cancel Reason
  Duplicate Hearing Comment
  SC TRR – 2 DAYS – WILL BE MOTION TO CONTINUE – NO GAL REPORT YET
• 06/07/2022 Non-Jury Trial Original Type
  Non-Jury Trial Judicial Officer
  Houser, William C Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Result
  Continued Comment
  SC TRR – 2 DAYS – WILL BE RESET – NO GAL REPORT YET Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S
• 99 06/07/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Houser, William C Comment
  COURT CONT TRIAL 08/16/22; TO BE SET THROUGH SCHEDULER
• 100 06/07/2022 Assignment of Trial Date View Document Assignment of Trial Date Comment
  8/16/22 AT 9AM – 2 DAY TRIAL
• 101 06/07/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
• 102 06/09/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 103 06/09/2022 Affidavit of Mailing View Document Affidavit of Mailing
• 104 06/13/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 105 06/23/2022 Memorandum View Document Memorandum Comment
  IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REVISION
• 06/23/2022 Sealed Personal Health Care Records Cover Sheet
• 06/24/2022 Revision Original Type
  Revision Judicial Officer
  Olsen, Sally F Hearing Time
  2:30 PM Result
  HeldParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): GOODMAN, MATTHEW S Respondent (WIP): BRYANT, JULIA F
• 106 06/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Olsen, Sally F Comment
  MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT
• 08/16/2022 Non-Jury Trial Hearing Time
  9:00 AM Comment
  SC TRR – 2 DAYS

Case Information

22-2-00076-23 | JOSEPH A SHELTON et al vs BRIAN NULL et al

Case Number
22-2-00076-23

Court
Mason

File Date
02/17/2022

Case Type
INJ Injunction

Case Status
Active

Party

Plaintiff
SHELTON, JOSEPH A

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyNichols, Julie Sund

Retained

---

Plaintiff
SHELTON, SHAWNA

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyNichols, Julie Sund

Retained

---

Defendant
NULL, BRIAN

---

Defendant
NULL, JANE DOE

Defendant
AND ANY OTHER OCCUPANTS

Events and Hearings

• 1 02/17/2022 Case Information Cover Sheet View Document Case Information Cover Sheet
• 2 02/17/2022 Summons View Document Summons
• 3 02/17/2022 Complaint View Document Complaint
• 4 02/17/2022 Motion View Document Motion Comment
  for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law
• 5 02/17/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings Comment
  Preliminary Injunction
• 6 02/17/2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
• 7 02/17/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Comment
  Preliminary injunctive relief
• 8 02/17/2022 Notice of Issue View Document Notice of Issue
• 9 02/17/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 10 02/24/2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause Comment
  AMENDED
• 11 02/24/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
• 12 02/24/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 13 02/25/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Comment
  AMENDED -Preliminary injunctive relief
• 14 02/28/2022 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Stricken
• 02/28/2022 Show Cause Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel LHearing Time
  1:30 PM Cancel Reason
  Clerical Error
• 15 02/28/2022 Hearing Stricken In Court Other Reason View Document Mason Minutes
• 16 03/02/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 17 03/07/2022 Show Cause Original Type
  Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time
  1:15 PM Result
  Held Parties Present Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund, Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund
• 18 03/07/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 19 03/07/2022 Order Granting Motion Petition View Document Order Granting Motion Petition Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Comment
  FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTIVE RELIEF
• 20 03/09/2022 Writ View Document Writ Comment
  OF ASSISTANCE
• 21 03/11/2022 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration
• 22 03/11/2022 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion Petition Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 23 03/11/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing
• 24 03/14/2022 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment
  stay on writ Document has been cut and taped
• 25 03/14/2022 Order Granting Motion Petition View Document Order Granting Motion PetitionJudicial Officer
  Finlay, Amber L Comment
  For Stay on the Writ of Assistance
• 26 03/14/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Finlay, Amber L
• 27 03/23/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment
  Stephen Whitehouse
• 28 03/23/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 29 03/28/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type
  Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  HeldParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
• 30 03/28/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 31 03/28/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 32 03/31/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 33 04/04/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type
  Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  HeldParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
• 34 04/04/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 35 04/04/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of HearingComment
  presentation of Orders
• 36 04/04/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 37 04/11/2022 Presentation of Order Original Type
  Presentation of Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Held
• 38 04/11/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L
• 39 04/12/2022 Order Authorizing View Document Order AuthorizingJudicial Officer
  Goodell, Daniel L Comment
  LIFTING STAY PARTIALLY AND AMENDING ORDER FROM 3-7-22
• 40 04/14/2022 Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney View Document Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney
• 41 05/04/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
• 42 05/04/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment View Document Motion for Summary Judgment
• 43 05/04/2022 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
• 44 06/06/2022 Summary Judgment Original Type
  Summary Judgment View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time
  1:30 PMResult
  Held Comment
  Tammy with Whitehouse Case called on 6/1/2022 at 11:00 AM – SL Parties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
• 45 06/06/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D
• 46 06/06/2022 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D
• 47 06/10/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 48 06/10/2022 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit
• 49 06/13/2022 Motion Hearing Original Type
  Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time
  1:30 PMResult
  Held Comment
  Tami w/ Whitehouse & Nichols called to confirm on 6/8/22 at 9:02 AM – SLParties PresentPlaintiffAttorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Plaintiff Attorney: Nichols, Julie Sund Defendant: NULL, BRIAN
• 50 06/13/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D

and Blastocystis hominis, and helminths, mostly Anisakis simplex, Strongyloides stercoralis, and Toxocara canis.

From: Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, 2021

Intestinal Protozoa

Mark Feldman MD, in Sleisenger and Fordtran’s Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease, 2021

Blastocystis hominis

B. hominis is an intestinal protozoan that commonly infects the human colon. After many years of confusion regarding its taxonomy,Blastocystis is now recognized as a stramenopile, which is one of the major groups of eukaryotes and includes brown algae, diatoms, water molds, etc.¹³⁹ To date, only one other stramenopile (i.e.,Pythium) is known to infect humans. Diameter ranges from 3 to 30 μm. In culture,B. hominis has ameboid, vacuolated, granular,⁶⁵ and cystic forms. The distribution ofB. hominis is worldwide, but infection is most common in the tropics.⁸¹ In a large study of intestinal parasitism in the USA,B. hominis was identified in 2.6% of stool specimens submitted to state health departments; more than 70% of positive samples were from California.⁸⁵ Among American travelers and expatriates, the prevalence often exceeds 30%.⁸¹

The significance ofB. hominis as a pathogen remains controversial. Several studies have suggested an association with IBS, but neither cause nor effect has been established, and in most series,B. hominis infection is not more common among patients with GI complaints than among asymptomatic control subjects.⁸¹ Interestingly, there is tremendous genetic heterogeneity amongB. hominis isolates, which may explain the apparent differences in clinical manifestations of infection.¹³⁹ Multiple studies have used metronidazole (750 mg orally 3 times a day for 10 days) or iodoquinol (650 mg orally 3 times a day for 20 days) for treatment of symptomatic patients, with an overall improvement rate of about 50%.⁸⁰ Clinical improvement in some patients may relate to treatment of more virulent isolates, but it may also be a result of treatment of unrecognized infections with other organisms, because many people infected withB. hominis simultaneously harbor known pathogens.¹²⁸ In one series of patients withB. hominis infection, 84% of patients were found to have at least one recognized pathogen other thanB. hominis (E. histolytica,G. intestinalis, orD. fragilis) when repeated stool examinations were obtained.¹²⁸

View chapter on ClinicalKey

Amebiasis, Giardiasis, and Other Intestinal Protozoan Infections

Abinash Virk, in The Travel and Tropical Medicine Manual (Fifth Edition), 2017

Blastocystis hominis

Blastocystis hominis is a common stool commensal (up to 19% of normal controls in the United States are colonized). There is evidence that heavy infestations may be associated with cramps, vomiting, dehydration, abdominal pain, sleeplessness, nausea, weight loss, lassitude, dizziness, flatus, anorexia, pruritus, and tenesmus.

B. hominis infections in primates have been cured with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In vitro susceptibility tests show that the following drugs may be effective, in descending order: emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, furazolidone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, iodochlorhydroxyquin (Entero-Vioform), and pentamidine. Chloroquine and iodoquinol have also been reported as effective treatments.

The role of B. hominis as a human pathogen is still controversial. Some published reports, based on clinical and laboratory studies, have suggested that when B. hominis-associated diarrhea appears to respond to therapy, improvement may, in fact, be due to some other undetected organism that is actually causing the problem.

View chapter Purchase book

Amebiasis, Giardiasis, and Other Intestinal Protozoan Infections

Abinash Virk, in The Travel and Tropical Medicine Manual (Fifth Edition), 2017

Blastocystis hominis

Blastocystis hominis is a common stool commensal (up to 19% of normal controls in the United States are colonized). There is evidence that heavy infestations may be associated with cramps, vomiting, dehydration, abdominal pain, sleeplessness, nausea, weight loss, lassitude, dizziness, flatus, anorexia, pruritus, and tenesmus.

B. hominis infections in primates have been cured with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. In vitro susceptibility tests show that the following drugs may be effective, in descending order: emetine, metronidazole, nitazoxanide, furazolidone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, iodochlorhydroxyquin (Entero-Vioform), and pentamidine. Chloroquine and iodoquinol have also been reported as effective treatments.

The role of B. hominis as a human pathogen is still controversial. Some published reports, based on clinical and laboratory studies, have suggested that when B. hominis-associated diarrhea appears to respond to therapy, improvement may, in fact, be due to some other undetected organism that is actually causing the problem.

View chapter. Purchase book

Other Intestinal Protozoa

Martin S. Wolfe, in Netter’s Infectious Diseases, 2012

Blastocystis Hominis

Blastocystis hominis is a common inhabitant of the human intestinal tract. For many years it was regarded as a harmless yeast, but it is now considered by most to be a protozoan. The potential for B. hominis as a pathogen is a subject of debate. Reported symptoms associated with heavy B. hominis infection in the absence of other recognized pathogenic organisms include mild diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, and fatigue. It remains uncertain whether B. hominis itself is the cause of symptoms or if it is only a marker of some other unidentified pathogen. Markell and Udkow have given an interesting and compelling perspective to this controversy. In 32 symptomatic subjects initially found with B. hominis alone or in combination with nonpathogenic protozoa, an additional series of stool specimens (up to six) were rigorously examined. In 27 of those 32 patients, at least one known pathogenic protozoa in addition to B. hominis was found. B. hominis persisted, but symptoms improved in all 27 patients treated specifically for these other pathogenic protozoa. It was concluded that B. hominis is not a pathogen, that treatment with common antiprotozoal drugs may not eliminate it from the stool, and that “symptomatic blastocystosis” was attributable to either an undetected parasite or parasites in some patients or functional bowel problems in others.

View chapter Purchase book

Protozoa

Lynne S. Garcia, in Infectious Diseases (Fourth Edition), 2017

Blastocystis Species

Blastocystis spp. (formerly Blastocystis hominis) are transmitted via the fecal–oral route through contaminated food or water; the cysts survive in water for up to 19 days at normal temperatures.^2,8 Although other modes of transmission are not defined, the incidence and apparent worldwide distribution suggest the traditional route of infection. When genotypic results from animal isolates were compared with the diversity of genotypes of human Blastocystis spp. isolates, the human isolates were defined as the same as the subtypes of the pet isolates, as well as the tapwater isolates. Thus, the possibility of zoonotic transmission appears to be very likely.⁹

There are a number of different subtypes/strains/species included in this complex, some of which are considered pathogenic and some are nonpathogenic. Prevention would involve improved personal hygiene and sanitary conditions.

View chapter Purchase book

Miscellaneous Intestinal Protozoa

Lynne S Garcia, in Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Disease (Ninth Edition), 2013

Epidemiology

Blastocystis hominis is found worldwide with a prevalence in some studies as high as 58% and generally exceeds that of other organisms; even 15% of stool submitted in the USA for O&P examination may be positive. Fecal-oral transmission is postulated. Studies suggest the existence of numerous zoonotic isolates with frequent animal-to-human and human-to-animal transmission and of a large potential reservoir in animals for infections in humans. The pathogenicity of B. hominis has long been controversial. Several case-control analyses show no increase in prevalence in patients with diarrhea, with high carriage rates in asymptomatic individuals. Many patients infected with Blastocystis also carry other pathogens; endoscopic studies have not found intestinal pathology, thus causality can be difficult to discern.View chapterPurchase book

Blastocystis hominis and Blastocystis spp. Infection

James D. Cherry MD, MSc, in Feigin and Cherry’s Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 2019

Treatment

Given the controversy surrounding the pathogenicity ofB. hominis, a prudent approach is to refrain from treating asymptomatic immunocompetent persons.²¹ In patients who have gastrointestinal illness, including IBS, and in whom other pathogens have been excluded, administering a course of antiprotozoal chemotherapy may be reasonable. The results of several drug studies, including three that were placebo controlled, indicate that therapeutic improvements with parasite clearance in symptomatic patients were noted with the use of metronidazole (15–30 mg/kg per day for 7 to 10 days), nitazoxanide (200 mg twice daily for children 4–11 years old and 100 mg twice daily for children 1–3 years old for 3 days), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (6 mg/kg trimethoprim and 30 mg/kg sulfamethoxazole daily in two equal doses for 7 days in children; 320 mg trimethoprim and 1600 mg sulfamethoxazole daily in two equal doses for 7 days in adults).^22,38 However, because these drugs are broad spectrum, it is possible that clinical improvement may have been a consequence of treating an unidentified enteric pathogen.³⁸ To date, the scientific community has been unable to fulfill the Koch postulates for members of the genusBlastocystis.³⁸ Some investigators have reported symptomatic improvement in patients receiving either metronidazole or tinidazole.^5,11

Using an in vitro assay that used metabolic labeling, researchers found that the drugs emetine, satranidazole, furazolidone, and quinacrine were superior in activity to either metronidazole or tinidazole.⁵ These authors cautioned, however, that the in vitro assay does not take into account the pharmacokinetic properties of the drugs. More recent in vitro testing of ST1, ST3, ST4, and ST8 found thatB. hominis exhibits minimal sensitivity to metronidazole, paromomycin, and triple therapy consisting of furazolidone, nitazoxanide, and secnidazole; however, sensitivity to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and ivermectin was observed.³¹ A clinical pilot study from Australia reported on the efficacy of triple antibiotic therapy in 10 adult patients withBlastocystis-positive IBS.²³ The three-drug (or drug combination) regimen comprised diloxanide furoate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and secnidazole for 14 days, and it was shown to clearBlastocystis infection in 60% of patients, but with inconclusive effects on IBS in this small pilot study, such that larger studies may be required.²³ Ultimately, additional studies that examine drug sensitivities of differentBlastocystis subtypes may help clarify this situation, but for now the status of treating humanBlastocystis infection remains controversial.³⁵

View chapter on ClinicalKey

Clinical Presentation and Management of Travelers’ Diarrhea

Thomas Löscher, Martin Alberer, in Travel Medicine (Third Edition), 2013

Other Parasitic Agents

Blastocystis hominis is a protozoon of controversial clinical significance, and probably the most common intestinal parasite of man. In various studies it has been found more frequently in stool samples of patients with TD than in healthy controls. It is hypothesized that the development of diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms is associated with certain subtypes.³² Diagnosis is usually readily available by microscopy; subtypes can be determined by genotyping.

Microsporidia have occasionally been found as a cause of TD.³³ Even after treatment and resolution of diarrhea, microsporidia may be found in stool. Persistent diarrhea is seen preferably in immunocompromised patients. Diagnosis is made by stool microscopy using specific staining methods or by more sensitive tests, such as PCR.

Helminthic parasites are not a cause of typical TD, but diarrhea may be a symptom of various helminth infections, such as strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, fasciolopsiasis, intestinal schistosomiasis or trichinellosis. Blood eosinophilia is frequently present. Diagnosis by parasitological stool investigations can be difficult in travelers, as parasite burdens are usually low. Then, serology and new PCR methods may be helpful.

View chapter Purchase book

Blood and Tissue Protistans III

Burton J. Bogitsh, … Thomas N. Oeltmann, in Human Parasitology (Fifth Edition), 2019

Blastocystis Hominis

Blastocystis hominis is an enteric parasite of humans and a wide variety of animals. Its geographic range is global and the organism has been known since the early part of the 20th century. It is the causative agent of traveler’s diarrhea, rectal bleeding, fever, and irritable bowel syndrome. The taxonomic status of the organism is still questionable, but based on information derived from sequencing studies from multiple conserved genes, it is considered a polymorphic protozoan in the stramenopile group of protists. Its life cycle includes four stages, a vacuolated stage, most commonly found in stool samples, amoeboid, precystic, and cystic stages. The amoeboid stage reproduces by binary fission, while the cystic stages are considered, by many, the transmissible stages. The cystic stage comprises thin-walled and thick-walled types with the former probably being the autoinfective stage and the latter’s role being that of external transmission. B. hominis displays extreme genetic diversity. The forms that are infective to humans can be assigned to at least seven zoonotic subtypes based on their genotypes. It is now believed that such genetic diversity is indicative of the pathogenic and non-pathogenic nature of the organism. While no treatment is indicated, metronidazole has proven effective in a number of clinical cases.

View chapter Purchase book

Host Immune Responses Against Intestinal Unicellular Parasites and Their Role in Pathogenesis and Protection

Raúl Argüello-GarcíaJulio César CarreroGuadalupe Ortega-Pierres, in Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, 2020

Subtypes, pathogenicity, immune response and immunomodulation

This microorganism was historically referred as Blastocystis hominis when isolated from humans, but humans can be infected with other species (e.g., B. ratti). Molecular studies using the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene (SSU) revealed at least 17 Blastocystis subtypes (STs), all of which are morphologically similar but genetically distinct (Alfellani et al., 2013; Stensvold et al., 2007). Thereafter, the designation “Blastocystis spp. STnn” covers all subtypes, of which ST1 to ST9 and ST12 have been detected in humans, and ST1 to ST4 are involved in 90% of human cases (Stensvold and Clark, 2016). Further, subtypes ST18 to ST26 have been proposed to infect humans, but this finding is still controversial (Maloney et al., 2019; Stensvold and Clark, 2020).

To date, there is no proven relationship between Blastocystis STs and virulence, although there appears to be an association. However, key processes involved in intestinal pathogenicity have been identified. In vitro interaction experiments have shown that Blastocystis is able to (a) attach intestinal mucin; (b) promote tight junction alteration mediated by Rho/ROCK, which, in turn, disrupts epithelial barrier function, hence increasing permeability; (c) NF-κB-mediated secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines (GM-CSF, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α) (Fig. 4A); and (d) enterocyte apoptosis by contact-independent, caspase 3-dependent mechanisms (Lim et al., 2014; Puthia et al., 2006) (Fig. 4B). The high genetic variability among Blastocystis isolates is a major contributing factor, not only to explain the distinct inter-ST and intra-ST abilities to induce the alterations mentioned above (Gentekaki et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2014), but also to define likely virulence factors and immune evasion mechanisms used by this parasite.

In spite of the non-invasive nature and controvert pathogenicity of Blastocystis spp., local-intestinal and systemic immune responses have been observed, but are somewhat conflicting. In symptomatic humans, higher levels of serum IgG have been found than in asymptomatic individuals, with variable levels of IgA in serum (Mahmoud and Saleh, 2003; Zierdt et al., 1995). On the other hand, mucosal antibody response in the intestine, mediated by secretory IgA (Fig. 4C), seems to be associated with latent infection, because this isotype is more abundant both in symptomatic patients and in immunized BALB/c mice, acting as a first-line defense against attachment and invasiveness by Blastocystis (Mahmoud and Saleh, 2003; Santos and Rivera, 2009). Further, in pigs, where ST1, ST3 and mainly ST5 predominate, a study testing IgA by immunoblot in 233 fecal samples from asymptomatic, PCR-positive pigs revealed 81% reactivity against different protein bands of a Blastocystis extract from isolate WR-1 (ST4), particularly against a 250 kDa component (Wang et al., 2014). In this context, recent experiments have identified an important role for secreted proteases as major candidate for virulence factors based on their ability to degrade secreted antibodies, disrupt epithelial barrier function and promote the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Ajjampur and Tan, 2016; Nourrisson et al., 2016). Particularly cysteine proteases of Blastocystis from symptomatic human cases displayed a higher enzyme activity than those from asymptomatic carriers (Mirza and Tan, 2009). Indeed, secretory dimeric IgA was degraded by cellular and secretory Blastocystis proteases of the cysteine (isolate B, ST7) and a aspartic protease (isolate WR-1, ST4) (Puthia et al., 2005). Interestingly, a variant repertoire and activity of cysteine proteases within and among STs have been reported (Gentekaki et al., 2017; Mirza and Tan, 2009), supporting the notion of variability in pathogenicity and in immune evasion ability among STs.

NO is an important component of the innate immune system, which is produced in large quantities from l-arginine through the activation of NOSII, and is a free radical causing nitrosative stress-mediated death in microbial pathogens. In Blastocystis, necrosis as well as apoptosis-like processes might be induced by NO (Eida et al., 2008; Mirza et al., 2011b) (Fig. 4D). Interestingly, Blastocystis isolate B (ST7) is more prone to apoptosis (i.e., more susceptible to NO) than isolate WR-1 (ST4) (Eida et al., 2008); nevertheless, the ST7 isolate is able to downregulate NOSII mRNA levels in colonic epithelial cell monolayers (CaCo-2) (Mirza et al., 2011b). Although the ST7 isolate contains much higher arginase activity than ST4 isolate, this feature is thought to be secondary to the decrease in NOSII expression in evasion (Mirza et al., 2011a).

Cellular immune response elicited by Blastocystis spp. has been studied in vitro and in vivo. The ability of this parasite to disrupt intestinal barrier integrity allows its secreted antigens to cross epithelium and reach the lamina propria, thus reaching effector cells. In this context, cysteine proteases released by Blastocystis negatively affect enterocyte junctions through Rho kinase activation, F-actin rearrangement and ZO-1 distribution increasing epithelial permeability (Mirza et al., 2012; Puthia et al., 2006). Experimental infections with cysts in BALB/c mice (human isolate) and rats (isolate RN94-9, ST4) showed, by histological examination, an intense infiltration of pro-inflammatory cells in colonic and caecal mucosa, with a moderate increase in goblet cell numbers (Iguchi et al., 2009; Moe et al., 1997). This recruitment is, in part, mediated by soluble mediators acting on inducing granulocytes/macrophages (GM-CSF) and neutrophil recruitment (IL-8), both released by colonic epithelial cell lines (HT-29 and T84) in response to infection by Blastocystis (Long et al., 2001). Regarding mucus production by goblet cells that alleviate colitis-induced symptoms, this production is triggered via IL-22 from CD4 + cells (Leung et al., 2014). In addition, macrophages initially resident in the lamina propria or recruited to the inflamed bowel may be induced by serine proteases from Blastocystis, which may activate protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2), which, in turn, triggers mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways involving ERK1/2 and JNK, thereby promoting the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines as IL-1β, IL-6 and TNFα (Lim et al., 2014) (Fig. 4E). Interestingly, this response was found to be more intense when macrophages and even mice with colitis or mouse colon explants were exposed to lysates from isolate B (ST7) as compared with isolate WR-1 (ST4), indicating a differential pro-inflammatory potential among STs (Lim et al., 2014). Further, some IBS cases with concomitant Blastocystis infection are refractory to metronidazole treatment, as parasite isolates (e.g., isolate B) display resistance to this drug (Mirza et al., 2011a). Moreover, isolate B has a higher virulence-arsenal than isolate WR-1, as it contains more cysteine and serine proteases, and arginase activities that appear to explain isolate B’s higher IgA degradation capacity, higher phosphorylation of MAPKs leading to higher pro-inflammatory responses and lower NO production in host cells to allow parasite survival.

The relationship between cellular immune responses to Blastocystis and development of intestinal inflammation, i.e., IBS/IBD, is unclear, but there are significant insights into the activation of the immune response, loss of tolerance to the parasite and immunosuppression (Kaser et al., 2010; Strober et al., 2002). In IBS patients with concomitant Blastocystis infection, lower levels of CD3 + and CD4 + cells and CD4 +/CD8 + ratios were observed (Wang et al., 2002) (Fig. 4F). In the same context, IBS patients infected with subtypes ST1 or ST3 produced higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines as IL-8, IL-12 and TNFα compared to patients with only IBS (Yakoob et al., 2014) (Fig. 4G). In addition, Blastocystis carriers harbouring polymorphisms in the alleles of pro-inflammatory IL-8 + 396 (GG) and anti-inflammatory IL-10-592 (C) cytokines were at significant risk of developing IBS (Olivo-Diaz et al., 2012) (Fig. 4H).

Besides pro-inflammatory cytokines, there is limited information regarding other soluble parasite mediators. Interestingly, colorectal cancer cell line HCT116 exposed to antigen extracts of Blastocystis from symptomatic patients significantly up-regulated transcription factor NF-κB, Th-1 (IFN-γ and TNFα) and Th-2 (IL-6, IL-8 and TGFβ) mRNA responses with dominance of Th-2 pattern in comparison with the same cells exposed to extracts from asymptomatic patients (Chan et al., 2012). Considering this aspect, a comparison among subtypes ST1 to ST5 showed that ST3 evoked a higher up-regulation of Th-2 cytokines, particularly TGFβ (Kumarasamy et al., 2013). Altogether, these observations provide evidence of host immunomodulation induced by this parasite.

View chapter Purchase book

Case Information

21-3-00272-23 | RACHEL A FERRAND vs EDWARD SCOTT REED
Case Number
21-3-00272-23

Court
Mason

File Date
11/30/2021

Case Type
PPS Parenting Plan/Child Support

Case Status
Active

Party

Respondent (WIP)
REED, EDWARD SCOTT

DOB
XX/XX/1974

Active Attorneys
Lead Attorney PESICKA, RYAN MATTHEW

Retained

Petitioner (WIP)
FERRAND, RACHEL A

DOB
XX/XX/1992

Petitioner (WIP)
ST OF WASH, MASON CO PROSECUTOR

Active Attorneys
Lead AttorneyWilcox, Bailey James

Retained

Minor (WIP)
REED, LEON JAYMZ

DOB
XX/XX/2014

Events and Hearings

• 1 11/30/2021 Motion for Waiver of Fees View Document Motion for Waiver of Fees
• 2 11/30/2021 Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis View Document Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D
• 3 11/30/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer
  Cobb, Monty D Comment
  Ex Parte
• 11/30/2021 Confidential Information Form
• 4 11/30/2021 Summons View Document Summons
• 5 11/30/2021 Petition for a Parenting Plan and or Child Support View Document Petition for a Parenting Plan and or Child Support
• 6 /30/2021 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
• 7 11/30/2021 Cover Sealed Birth Certificate or Paternity Document View Document Cover Sealed Birth Certificate or Paternity Document
• 8 12/03/2021 Motion for Temporary Order View Document Motion for Temporary Order
• 9 12/03/2021 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
• 10 12/06/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
• 11 12/09/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 12 12/09/2021 Response View Document Response
• 13 12/10/2021 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer
  Sauerlender, Robert D
• 14 12/21/2021 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
• 15 12/21/2021 Response View Document Response
• 16 12/21/2021 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
• 17 12/21/2021 Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan View Document Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan
• 18 12/22/2021 Temporary Order Original Type
  Temporary Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time
  1:30 PM Result
  Held Comment
  CONFIRMED via phone 12/14/2021 by Dennis Cygan. -BH Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): FERRAND, RACHEL A Respondent (WIP) Attorney: PESICKA, RYAN MATTHEW Petitioner (WIP) Attorney: Wilcox, Bailey James
• 19 12/22/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 20 01/14/2022 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 01/14/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer
  Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
• 21 03/15/2022 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
• 22 04/15/2022 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance Comment
  Amended