§8.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§8.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section provides notable cases illustrating how Washington courts have construed the provisions of CR 8.

With respect to CR 8 generally, see 3A Karl B. Teglund, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE, CR 8 (6th ed. 2002); Melvyn J. Simburg, Donald P. Swisher & Ronald G. Brown, Pleading and Proving Foreign Law—The New Rules, 37 WASH. ST. BAR NEWS, at 61 (Sept. 1983); Philip A. Trautman, Choice of Law in Washington—The Evolution Continues, 63 Wash. L. Rev. 69 (1988); Philip A. Trautman, Pleading Principles and Problems in Washington, 56 WASH. L. REV. 687 (1981).

(1) Claims for relief

A claim is adequately pleaded if it contains a short, plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment based on it. The purpose of the complaint is to apprise the defendant of plaintiff's claims and the legal grounds on which they rest. Christensen v. Swedish Hosp., 59 Wn.2d 545, 548, 368 P.2d 897 (1962) (interpreting RPPP 8).

Under notice pleading, a specific claim does not have to be listed for the plaintiff to gain relief, as long as facts supporting the claim are properly pleaded. Waller v. State, 64 Wn.App. 318, 337, 824 P.2d 1225, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1014 (1992).

Courts should dismiss a claim under CR 12(b)(6) only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts exist that would justify recovery. A complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if, accepting its allegation as true, no set of facts consistent with the complaint could be proved that would entitle the claimant to relief. Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 750, 888 P.2d 147 (1995); Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wn.2d 198, 214, 118 P.3d 311 (2005).

When examining a case pursuant to dismissal under CR 12(b)(6), a court presumes a plaintiff's allegations are true and must consider hypothetical facts alleged by the plaintiff. Gorman, 155 Wn.2d at 214.

A complaint that contains a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief will be sustained on any theory of law established by the pleadings and supported by the proof. Dobias v. W. Farmers Ass'n, 6 Wn.App. 194, 197, 491 P.2d 1346 (1971).

A pleading is insufficient when it does not give the opposing party fair notice of what the claim is and the ground upon which it rests. Evergreen Moneysource Mortg. Co. v. Shannon, 167 Wn.App. 242, 256, 274 P.3d 375 (2012). A party who does not plead a cause of action or theory of recovery cannot finesse the issue by later inserting the theory into trial briefs and contending it was in the case all along. Id.

Reference to "constitutional tort claims" provides insufficient notice of a claim for violation of an employee's free speech rights. Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn.App. 454, 470, 98 P.3d 827 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1007 (2005).

Complaint alleging that operator of real estate lending office violated agreement with first lender by improperly retaining first lender's customers after terminating association with first lender and engaging second lender was insufficient to plead claim against operator for improper disclosure of first lender's confidential and proprietary information, as complaint failed to give operator fair notice of improper disclosure claim or factual basis for such a claim. Evergreen Moneysource Mortg., 167 Wn. App. at 257.

Initial pleadings that are unclear may be clarified by materials submitted during the course of summary judgment proceedings. Id. at 256 (citing State v. Adams, 107 Wn.2d 611, 620, 732 P.2d 149 (1987)).

In cases in which the pleadings themselves contain factual allegations that negate the cause of action, dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate. The rule that the facts should be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff does not require the court to turn a blind eye to facts asserted by the plaintiff that negate his or her cause of action. Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 440, 755 P.2d 781 (1988).

Although the court may consider hypothetical facts, the rules require all claims to be raised in a complaint or amended complaint, not imported under the guise of hypothetical facts that "bear no relation to the formal complaints" in response to a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96, 116, 233 P.3d 861 (2010).

In a personal injury action, a defendant's due process right to assume that a default judgment will not exceed the demand stated in the complaint does not provide a right to notice of a hearing to determine the amount of a default judgment when, pursuant to...