`
`No. 19-291
`================================================================================================================
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`ANNE K. BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondents.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Ninth Circuit
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`RESPONDENTS JOE BEAVERS, LINDA LOEN,
`CRYSTAL HILL-PENNINGTON, PORT OF
`SEATTLE, KALI MATUSKA, JULIA TANGA,
`SEAN GILLEBO, JAMES TUTTLE, KENYON
`DISEND, MICHAEL KENYON, ANN MARIE
`SOTO, SANDRA SULLIVAN, AND MARGARET
`KING’S JOINT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`MICHAEL R. KENYON
`ANN MARIE SOTO
`KENYON DISEND, PLLC
`11 Front Street South
`Issaquah, WA 98104
`(425) 392-7090
`Mike@KenyonDisend.com
`AnnMarie@KenyonDisend.com
`Attorneys for Kenyon Disend,
` PLLC, Michael Kenyon,
` Ann Marie Soto, Sandra
` Sullivan and Margaret King
`
`AMANDA G. BUTLER
`Counsel of Record
`KEATING, BUCKLIN
` & MCCORMACK, INC., P.S.
`801 Second Avenue,
` Suite 1210
`Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 623-8861
`abutler@kbmlawyers.com
`Attorneys for Joe Beavers,
` Linda Loen, Crystal
` Hill-Pennington, Port of
` Seattle, Kali Matuska,
` Julia Tanga, Sean
` Gillebo,and James Tuttle
`================================================================================================================
`COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
`WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`1. Whether Ms. Block has met her burden in
`
`demonstrating allowance for her writ as set forth in
`United States Supreme Court Rule 10 (Considerations
`Governing Review on Certiorari).
`2. Whether certiorari should be denied where
`
`the case arises from a unique set of facts; the Ninth
`Circuit’s decision does not conflict with the decision of
`any other Court of Appeals or with any decision of this
`Court; and the Petition does not present any question
`of exceptional importance worthy of this Court’s atten-
`tion.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
`
`26.1, Kenyon Disend, PLLC is a Washington profes-
`sional limited liability company and states that it has
`no parent corporation or publicly held corporation that
`holds 10% or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`Anne Block v. Washington State Bar Association, et al.,
`No. C15-2018, U.S. District Court for the Western Dis-
`trict of Washington. Judgment entered August 17,
`2016.
`
`Anne Block v. Washington State Bar Association, et al.,
`No. 16-35274, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
`cuit. Judgment entered September 28, 2016.
`
`Anne Block v. Washington State Bar Association, et al.,
`No. 16-35461, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
`cuit. Judgment entered February 11, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................
`i
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........
`ii
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ...................
`ii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................
`iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................
`v
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................
`1
`DECISION BELOW ...............................................
`1
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................
`2
` A. Procedural Background ...............................
`2
` B. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining
`to the Gold Bar Defendants (Linda Loen,
`Joe Beavers, Crystal Hill Pennington and
`the City of Gold Bar) ....................................
` C. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining
`to the Port of Seattle Defendants ................
` D. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining
`7
`to the Kenyon Disend Defendants ..............
`REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ....... 10
` A. This Case Presents a Fact-Specific Scenario
`and is Thereby Improper for Certiorari ...... 10
` B. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Does Not Con-
`flict With the Decision of Any Other Court
`of Appeals or With Any Decision of This
`Court ............................................................. 12
`
`3
`
`6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
`
`Page
` C. The Petition Does Not Present Any Ques-
`tion of Exceptional Importance Worthy of
`This Court’s Attention ................................. 13
`CONCLUSION ....................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 362 F.3d
`739 (11th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 10, 12
`Block v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 761 Fed.
`Appx. 729 (9th Cir. 2019) .......................................... 2
`Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U.S. 440 (1918) ......... 11
`Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555,
`131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) ........................................... 11
`NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Corp.,
`454 U.S. 170 (1981) ................................................. 11
`Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Utilities Com’n
`of California, 475 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89
`L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ...................................................... 13
`Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609,
`104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) ................... 13
`Rudolph v. United States, 370 U.S. 269 (1962) .......... 11
`Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public
`Service Co., 263 U.S. 508 (1924) .............................. 11
`Texas v. Mead, 465 U.S. 1041 (1984) .......................... 11
`United States v. Johnson, 268 U.S. 220 (1925) ........... 11
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
`U.S. Const. amend. I ......................................... 5, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ............................................................ 2
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................... 2
`Sup. Ct. R. 10 .................................................... 1, 10, 13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`S. Shapiro, Certiorari Practice: The Supreme
`Court’s Shrinking Docket; Litigation, Vol. 24,
`No. 3, 25-33 (Spring 1998) ...................................... 11
`Stewart A. Baker, Symposium on Supreme
`Court Advocacy: A Practical Guide to Certio-
`rari, 33 Cath. U. L. Rev. 611 (1984) ........................ 10
`Sanford Levinson, Book Review: Strategy, Juris-
`prudence, and Certiorari. Deciding to Decide:
`Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme
`Court, 79 Va. L. Rev. 717 (1993) ........................ 10, 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Petition is nothing more than Petitioner
`Anne Block’s most recent of her relentless attempts to
`harass the Respondents. Ms. Block, a formerly licensed
`attorney in Washington State, brought this action
`against a multitude of defendants including the Wash-
`ington State Bar Association (“WSBA”), various local
`government agencies, WSBA and local government of-
`ficials, and the attorneys who represent them, alleging
`a widespread conspiracy amongst these officials and
`agencies to harm her. All of the Defendants were dis-
`missed, and Ms. Block was sanctioned by the district
`court for her “vexatiously pursued litigation.” The Ninth
`Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all
`of the Defendants and the award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`In her Petition, Ms. Block fails to cite to any of the
`
`criteria in Supreme Court Rule 10 to support granting
`of review here. Instead, Ms. Block makes the same un-
`successful arguments she made before the district
`court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt
`to relitigate purely factual issues. No conflict between
`courts exists. No important federal question is pre-
`sented. Review is not appropriate in a factually intense
`case, such as here. Certiorari should be denied.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`DECISION BELOW
`
`The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order af-
`firming the District Court’s dismissal of Ms. Block’s
`Amended Complaint and denial of her motions to
`
`
`
`2
`
`disqualify District Court judges is available at Block v.
`Washington State Bar Ass’n, 761 Fed. Appx. 729 (9th
`Cir. 2019).
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`A. Procedural Background.
`
`On December 28, 2015, Block filed her Com-
`plaint—and subsequently, an Amended Complaint and
`“RICO Statement”—in the instant matter alleging var-
`ious governmental agencies and individuals were part
`of a conspiracy to retaliate against her stemming from
`her blogging activities. ER Vol. V: 94-158; ER Vol. V: 1-
`87; ER Vol. IV: 69-235. All of the Defendants—and in
`particular, the Gold Bar, Port of Seattle, and Kenyon
`Disend Defendants—ultimately moved to dismiss un-
`der Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ER Vol. II: 61-82; ER Vol. IV:
`1-21; 56-68. The Kenyon Disend Defendants also filed
`a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
`ER Vol. III: 168-183. The district court subsequently
`dismissed the Gold Bar, Port of Seattle, and Kenyon
`Disend Defendants, and granted Kenyon Disend’s mo-
`tion for sanctions, awarding monetary sanctions to
`Kenyon Disend and issuing a pre-filing order against
`Block for her vexatiously pursued litigation. ER Vol. I:
`33-47; 74-100; 105-136.
`
`As part of her vexatious litigation tactics, Ms.
`
`Block also filed multiple motions to disqualify the
`judges who were assigned to this case, alleging they
`were barred—as members of the WSBA—from hearing
`
`
`
`3
`
`this matter because the WSBA was a defendant. ER
`Vol. 177; ER Vol. IV: 49-55; ER Vol. V: 88-93. All of Ms.
`Block’s motions to disqualify were denied. ER Vol. I:
`137-139; ER Vol. V: 172; ER Vol. V: 181.
`
`On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Court affirmed
`
`the dismissal of all of the Defendants, denial of the mo-
`tions to disqualify, and the awards for attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`B. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining to
`the Gold Bar Defendants (Linda Loen, Joe
`Beavers, Crystal Hill Pennington and the
`City of Gold Bar).
` Ms. Block pled numerous causes of action against
`the various Gold Bar Defendants to include defama-
`tion, First Amendment retaliation and RICO viola-
`tions.
`
` Ms. Block claimed that Linda Loen (a former
`mayor of the City of Gold Bar) deprived her of her con-
`stitutional rights by retaliating against her. ER Vol. V:
`109-110, 15. Ms. Block alleged that Ms. Loen conspired
`with others to retaliate against her for exercising her
`constitutional and statutory rights. Id. Ms. Loen was
`identified as a RICO Defendant. Id. That was the
`extent of Ms. Block’s claims against Ms. Loen in her
`original Complaint. Ms. Block did not mention Ms.
`Loen again throughout her 65-page missive. In her
`Amended Complaint, Ms. Block claimed Ms. Loen: met
`with Joe Beavers (former Gold Bar Mayor) during the
`first week of December 2013; called Ms. Block urging
`her to keep her WSBA license; told her she needed to
`
`
`
`4
`
`attend a deposition; and told her she would get a lot of
`public records. ER Vol. V: 74-75.
`
` Ms. Block likewise claimed Joe Beavers (former
`Gold Bar Mayor) deprived her of rights guaranteed by
`the United States Constitution by retaliating against
`her for exercising those rights. ER Vol. V: 110, 15. He
`too was identified as a RICO Defendant. Id. Specifi-
`cally Ms. Block alleged Mr. Beavers:
`
`• Breached his public duties, violated his oath
`of office, conspired and agreed to cover up
`former City of Gold Bar employee, Karl Mar-
`jerle’s, crimes in exchange for assistance ob-
`taining a new job with the City of Bellevue,
`unfettered access to unemployment benefits
`and $10,000. ER Vol. V: 116-117, 26-29.
`
`•
`
`Illegally accessed and retrieved Plaintiff ’s
`mental health history, retrieved history for
`some other person, falsely characterized it as
`Plaintiff ’s and disseminated inside public rec-
`ords. ER Vol. V: 122, 32.
`
`• Ordered Gold Bar’s clerk to write a WSBA
`complaint for former City of Gold Bar council
`member Dorothy Croshaw who filed a WSBA
`complaint against Plaintiff in June 2010. ER
`Vol. V: 123-124, 33-34.
`
`• Stole money from the City’s water fund in late
`2010. ER Vol. V: 124, 34.
`
`• Conspired to assemble, write and file the sec-
`ond WSBA complaint against Plaintiff using
`city staff and city’s public records in June
`2012. ER Vol. V: 125-126, 36.
`
`
`
`5
`
`• Furthered the efforts of the enterprise on
`June 19, 2015 meeting at King County Dis-
`trict Court. ER Vol. V: 143, 70.
`
`• Assisted Kenyon Disend in obtaining the con-
`tract with the City of Gold Bar for legal ser-
`vices. ER Vol. V: 123, 33.
`
`• Stated “we’re going to get [Plaintiff ’s license].”
`ER Vol. V: 124, 34-35.
`
`• Met and conspired with others at the WSBA
`offices. ER Vol. V: 146, 72.
`
`• Used city resources to assist the WSBA by
`providing altered records to a WSBA investi-
`gator. ER Vol. V: 74-75.
`
`• Signed onto the Gold Bar Reporter. ER Vol. V:
`147, 75.
`
` Ms. Block pled defamation and First Amendment
`retaliation against Crystal Hill Pennington (former
`mayor of Gold Bar). She also identified Hill Pennington
`as a RICO defendant. ER Vol. V: 63-64. Ms. Block’s
`claims against Hill Pennington are set forth below:
`
`• Hill Pennington filed criminal complaints
`against Plaintiff. ER Vol. V: 60-70.
`
`• Hill Pennington retaliated against Plaintiff
`for First Amendment protected speech and
`filed a Petition for Restraining Order in King
`County, attempted to have Plaintiff criminally
`prosecuted in Duvall and Gold Bar and al-
`tered supporting documents in those matters.
`ER Vol. V: 60-70.
`
`
`
`6
`
`• Hill Pennington knowingly made and/or pub-
`lished false libelous recorded statements in-
`side King County Washington State records
`and knowingly filed false statements with the
`King County District Court, City of Duvall
`and Snohomish County. ER Vol. V: 60-70.
`
`• Hill Pennington met with others at King
`County District Court to further the Enter-
`prise. ER Vol. V: 60-70.
`
`
`C. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining to
`the Port of Seattle Defendants.
` Ms. Block’s allegations against the Port of Seattle
`Defendants were as follows:
`
`• Plaintiff was “illegally detained at Seattle Ta-
`coma International Airport by two Port offic-
`ers.” ER Vol. V: 67-69.
`
`• King County Defendant Cary Coblantz “placed
`a phone call to the Port of Seattle informing
`them what flight Plaintiff was on asking the
`Port of Seattle . . . to serve a civil order on
`Plaintiff. That Port of Seattle Officer Matuska,
`Tanga and [Gillebo] elicited the assistance of
`US Customs Officer Curtis Chen to place a
`tracker on Plaintiff ’s passport. That Port of
`Seattle admitted via a public records request
`that it has never served a civil order on any
`other person except for Plaintiff . ” ER Vol. V:
`67-69.
`
`
`
`7
`
`• Port of Seattle Defendants “Tanga, [Gillebo],
`and Tuttle were being paid by King County.”
`ER Vol. V: 67-69.
`
`• The Port of Seattle Police Department re-
`ceived an email from King County Defendant
`Cary Coblantz indicating “that Plaintiff was
`‘anti-government.’ ” ER Vol. V: 67-69.
`
`• Port of Seattle Defendant Tuttle “told Plaintiff
`that he was an internal affairs investigator
`for the Port of Seattle. Plaintiff learned from
`Port of Seattle public records, in August 2015,
`that Tuttle was not an internal affairs inves-
`tigator.” ER Vol. V: 67-69.
`
`
`D. Causes of Action and Decisions Pertaining to
`the Kenyon Disend Defendants.
`
`Kenyon, Soto, King and Sullivan are all current or
`former employees of Kenyon Disend, PLLC, and are all
`identified by Block as “RICO defendants.” ER Vol. V:
`16-17. The sole factual allegations against KD are:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In May 2009, Kenyon Disend, PLLC, Sullivan
`and Kenyon assisted defendant John Pen-
`nington (Pennington) in “quashing criminal
`assault charges” in some unidentified matter
`and are withholding public records relating to
`this assistance. ER Vol. V: 32-33.
`
`In April 2011, Defendant Joe Beavers (Bea-
`vers) assisted Kenyon Disend, PLLC in ob-
`taining a legal services contract with the City
`of Gold Bar, and King was assigned to repre-
`sent the City. ER Vol. V: 33, ¶ 3.20.
`
`
`
`8
`
`• King had some “involvement” in a Washington
`State Bar Association complaint filed against
`Block by a non-party, Dorothy Crowshaw
`(Crowshaw) in June of 2010. ER Vol. V: 33-34.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In early 2011, King, without seeking permis-
`sion from the Gold Bar City Council, filed a
`Motion for Sanctions against Block in a recall
`petition case that Block had filed against for-
`mer Gold Bar Mayor Beavers. ER Vol. V: 34.
`
`In late 2011, a Gold Bar Councilmember
`“stated” in an unidentified forum and to an
`unidentified person(s), “Margaret King is
`coming after you!” King then filed a Motion for
`Sanctions in an unidentified recall matter “in
`violation of Washington State Recall laws.”
`Such actions “amount to extortion, thus a
`predicate act under RICO.” ER Vol. V: 35.
`
`In late 2011, King filed an unidentified “ex-
`parte Motion” in an unidentified Snohomish
`County Superior Court matter after “notifying
`Plaintiff via email only hours before.” This
`Motion was heard by defendant Snohomish
`County Commissioner Geoffrey Gibbs, a “per-
`sonal friend to Michael Kenyon” even though
`“Washington State’s Public Records Act pro-
`hibits a Commissioner from hearing any is-
`sues relating to public records.” Block was
`then sanctioned as a result. Such actions
`“amount to extortion, thus a predicate act un-
`der RICO.” ER Vol. V: 35-36.
`
`
`
`9
`
`•
`
`In January 2012, King, Kenyon and Soto1 con-
`spired with defendants Crystal Hill-Penning-
`ton, Pennington and Beavers to write and file
`a WSBA complaint against Block using Gold
`Bar staff and public records, and that Kenyon
`Disend billed Gold Bar taxpayers for doing so.
`ER Vol. V: 36.
`
`• On May 13, 2014, defendant Sean Reay (Reay)
`“called Kenyon Disend.” ER Vol. V: 57.
`
`• At some unspecified time and in an unidenti-
`fied matter, someone named Krista Dashtestani
`“personally met Michael Kenyon in court pro-
`ceeding [sic] involving Hill-Pennington.” ER
`Vol. V: 61-62.
`
`• Cary Coblantz (Coblantz) conspired with Sul-
`livan to have Block charged with stalking. On
`September 21, 2015, Block published articles
`on her Gold Bar Reporter blog entitled, “Duvall
`City attorney Sandra Sullivan (Meadowcraft)
`[sic] quashing criminal charges for political fa-
`vors, EXPOSED” and “Michael Kenyon’s Dirty
`Bag of Secrets Part II.” ER Vol. V: 69.
`
`•
`
`In 1993, Kenyon was the City Attorney for
`Kelso at the time Pennington was a suspect
`in the rape of a five-year-old girl in Cowlitz
`County. Kenyon “owns one of the largest mu-
`nicipal law firms in Washington State.” ER
`Vol. V: 71-72.
`
`
`1 This is the only allegation which pertains to Soto. Block’s
`
`original Complaint (ER Vol. V: 94-158) failed entirely to mention
`Soto except in the case caption.
`
`
`
`10
`
`• From May 2014 to present, Kenyon “sign[s] on
`to [Block’s blog] the Gold Bar Reporter on an
`almost daily basis.” ER Vol. V: 75.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION
`A. This Case Presents a Fact-Specific Scenario
`and is Thereby Improper for Certiorari.
`
`The Supreme Court does not ordinarily grant re-
`view in “fact bound cases.” See Supreme Court Rule 10
`(“A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted
`when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual
`findings.”). A major reason why this Court will fre-
`quently deny certiorari in a case is if the legal dispute
`is fact-bound, that is, if it arises primarily from a
`unique constellation of facts unlikely to frequently
`arise again. Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
`362 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2004). “The Court’s job is to
`make law. . . . [Lower courts] cannot be brought into
`line by a Supreme Court decision that turns exclu-
`sively on the facts of one particular case. . . . [T]he
`Court prefers to take cases in which the facts are sim-
`ple and clear and the legal issue is presented crisply.”
`Id., quoting, Stewart A. Baker, Symposium on Supreme
`Court Advocacy: A Practical Guide to Certiorari, 33
`Cath. U. L. Rev. 611, 616 (1984); Sanford Levinson,
`Book Review: Strategy, Jurisprudence, and Certiorari.
`Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United
`States Supreme Court, 79 Va. L. Rev. 717, 726 (1993)
`(noting that some certiorari petitions “are likely to be
`denied because they are essentially fact bound”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`If the facts of the case are unusual or unique, such
`
`a ruling would only apply to a few people or have little
`real-world importance. See S. Shapiro Certiorari Prac-
`tice: The Supreme Court’s Shrinking Docket; Litigation,
`Vol. 24, No. 3, 25-33 (Spring 1998). When a petitioner
`concedes that the case was unusual or unique in its
`brief in the lower courts, such a characterization is “a
`kiss of death” (id. at 27) on a petition for writ of certio-
`rari. The Supreme Court will usually deny certiorari
`when review is sought of a lower court decision that
`turns solely upon an analysis of the particular facts in-
`volved, or upon the construction of particular contracts
`or written instruments. “We do not grant a certiorari
`to review evidence and discuss specific facts.” United
`States v. Johnson, 268 U.S. 220, 227 (1925); Texas v.
`Mead 465 U.S. 1041 (1984) (Stevens, J.); see NLRB v.
`Hendricks County Rural Electric Corp., 454 U.S. 170,
`176 n.8 (1981) (improvident grant of cross-petition that
`presented “primarily a question of fact,” “which does
`not merit Court review”); Rudolph v. United States, 370
`U.S. 269 (1962); Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina
`Public Service Co., 263 U.S. 508 (1924); Houston Oil Co.
`v. Goodrich, 245 U.S. 440 (1918). Fact bound bases are
`the “type of case[s] in which we are most inclined to
`deny certiorari.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 460, 115
`S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (Scalia, J., dissent-
`ing).
`
`As a threshold matter, this case presents an idio-
`
`syncratic body of facts. Ms. Block’s allegations (set
`forth above) confirm as much. Likewise, her Petition
`presents a tangled web of conspiracies in an attempt
`
`
`
`12
`
`to persuade this Court that her version of the facts is
`true rather than point to any of the considerations
`which would warrant review here. See Petition at 38
`(“Block offers several plausible factual allegations to
`support her contention. . . .”). Review should be denied
`on that basis alone.
`
`
`B. The Ninth Circuit’s Decision Does Not Con-
`flict With the Decision of Any Other Court of
`Appeals or With Any Decision of This Court.
`“[T]he ‘single most important’ factor for grant-
`ing certiorari petitions . . . is a split within the
`circuits that have considered the issue below.”
`Sanford Levinson, Book Review: Strategy, Ju-
`risprudence, and Certiorari. Deciding to De-
`cide: Agenda Setting in the United States
`Supreme Court, 79 Va. L. Rev. 717, 726 (1993)
`(quoting H.W. Perry, Jr., Deciding to Decide:
`Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme
`Court 251 (1991)).
`
`Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 362 F.3d 739
`(11th Cir. 2004). There is no such split here.
`
`Petitioner did not and cannot argue that the Ninth
`
`Circuit’s decision in this case was inconsistent with
`any of these decisions. Nor does the Ninth Circuit’s de-
`cision conflict with any decision reached by this Court.
`
`It is unclear whether Petitioner is trying to argue
`
`that the Ninth Circuit’s decision on disqualification
`conflicts with other precedent. See Petition at 27-28.
`Not only is an alleged misapplication of the law not an
`
`
`
`13
`
`appropriate consideration for granting review (See
`Supreme Court Rule 10), but Petitioner is simply in-
`correct. None of the cases Petitioner cites involved
`appellate decisions by the Ninth Circuit—or any Cir-
`cuit—related to issues of prejudice based on WSBA
`membership. Petition at 27. No conflict exists.
`
`
`
`This too, warrants denial of Ms. Block’s Petition.
`
`
`C. The Petition Does Not Present Any Question
`of Exceptional Importance Worthy of This
`Court’s Attention.
`
`There is no question of exceptional importance
`here and Ms. Block fails to clearly articulate that one
`exists. Instead, Ms. Block cites to her First Amendment
`constitutional right to disassociate and her assertion
`that she properly pled First Amendment retaliation
`claims. That alone is not a basis for certiorari.
`
`The right to eschew association for expressive pur-
`
`poses is protected. Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468
`U.S. 609, 623, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984)
`(“Freedom of association . . . plainly presupposes a free-
`dom not to associate”); see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v.
`Public Utilities Com’n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 12, 106
`S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (“[F]orced associations
`that burden protected speech are impermissible”). No-
`body disputes that. Rather, Ms. Block’s convoluted,
`tangled alleged conspiracy against fifty different de-
`fendants will not and could not conceivably bear on
`any other individual’s right to disassociate, and is en-
`tirely fact-based.
`
`
`
`14
`
` With respect to Ms. Block’s First Amendment re-
`taliation claims, she again merely reargues the case
`she presented to the district court and Ninth Circuit
`by focusing on the specific factual issues. Ms. Block
`fails to articulate anything more than her disagree-
`ment with the lower courts’ decisions. No unsettled
`area of law is alleged.
`
`This case was correctly decided by application of
`
`specific facts to well-settled law. Ms. Block has utterly
`failed to demonstrate how any issue in this case is of
`exceptional importance to anyone but her.
`
`--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The purpose of a petition for certiorari is not for
`the petitioner to demonstrate that his or her position
`is correct or that the lower court was right or wrong. It
`is also not an opportunity for the petitioner to reargue
`the merits of their case on purely factual issues. Yet, in
`doing just that, Ms. Block has failed to address any of
`the considerations to enable this Court to determine
`whether review is appropriate. For the reasons stated
`above, the Court should deny the Petition for Writ of
`Certiorari.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`RESPECTFULLY submitted this 4th day of No-
`
`vember, 2019.
`
`AMANDA G. BUTLER
`Counsel of Record
`KEATING, BUCKLIN
` & MCCORMACK, INC., P.S.
`801 Second Avenue, Suite 1210
`Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 623-8861
`abutler@kbmlawyers.com
`Attorneys for Joe Beavers, Linda
` Loen, Crystal Hill-Pennington,
` Port of Seattle, Kali Matuska,
` Julia Tanga, Sean Gillebo,
` and James Tuttle
`MICHAEL R. KENYON
`ANN MARIE SOTO
`KENYON DISEND, PLLC
`11 Front Street South
`Issaquah, WA 98104
`(425) 392-7090
`Mike@KenyonDisend.com
`AnnMarie@KenyonDisend.com
`Attorneys for Kenyon Disend, PLLC,
` Michael Kenyon, Ann Marie
` Soto, Sandra Sullivan
` and Margaret King
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
