Page 13 - iba White_Paper_for_BICC
P. 13

HEARINGS


             Based on the documented facts and controlling Washington law, IBA has
             concluded that IC has a very strong case for winning on summary judgment.  IC’s
             2013 Motion for Summary Judgment was well-written and persuasive.  Island
             County was forced to file its motion prematurely as a defense against
             Montgomery’s precipitous, multiple, untimely motions.  The judge denied
             Montgomery’s motions to dismiss and all defensive motions.  The rulings were
             procedural (too early) rather than substantive (you are wrong).


             Instead, the judge said he chose not to rule because discovery had not even
             started. There were many issues of fact on both sides of the case that the judge
             could not rule in favor of anyone


             During the hearing, there was one item the judge found helpful, which was Island
             County’s colored Topographic Survey of Wonn Road, which I copied for my exhibit
             today.  The judge commented on Island County’s Motion, noting that it included
             just the uplands, saying, “that’s just from the upland to the high tide line.  He
             asked how large a piece it was.  Montgomery answered, “40 feet X 80 feet.”
             Judge Rickert said, “it is small but significant.”


             Although IC’s Motion was not granted in 2013, it is now RIPE for re-submission to
             the Court without a lot of additional work. Most of the discovery, fact checking, and
             legal research has been done. The evidence and law supporting IC’s ownership of
             the uplands at Wonn Road is so compelling that the matter can be settled without
             a trial.  I believe the judge has shown favor toward that happening.


                                           LAW OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT


             To win on Summary Judgment the moving party must demonstrate 2 things:


             1      There must be  no material facts in dispute.
             2      The moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


             1      There must be no material facts in dispute.


                           27.1There are plenty of facts in this case.  There are manufactured
                           facts, irrelevant facts, trivial facts, distracting facts, disputed facts and
                           outright misrepresentations of facts.  But there are no MATERIAL facts
                           that can be disputed.




             IBA LEGAL WHITE PAPER                                                              Page  13 of 16
   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16