Knockfierna LLC v. City of Shelton

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05873
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT TACOMA

7 Case No. 3:24-cv-5873-BJR KNOCKFIERNA, LLC, 8 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 v. 10 CITY OF SHELTON, 11

12 Defendant.

13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This case arises from actions taken by Defendant City of Shelton (“the City”) regarding 15 building permit applications filed by Plaintiff Knockfierna, LLC (“Knockfierna”) over the course 16 of several years. Now pending before this Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Having 17 reviewed the materials and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will deny Knockfierna’s motion 18 and grant the City’s motion. The Court also finds that the City is entitled to reasonable costs and 19 attorney’s fees pursuant to RCW § 64.40.020. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 20 21 22 23

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 In 2016, Knockfierna acquired an old warehouse building in Shelton, Washington. Hill 3 Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 21. Knockfierna began altering the building to convert it into a cannabis 4 production facility. Id. 5 In 2020, Knockfierna applied for new building permits to continue alterations. Duggan 6 Decl. ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 18-2. The City identified various issues concerning the permit applications, 7 which led to a series of disagreements between the City and Knockfierna. See id. ¶¶ 7-10; Hill Decl. 8 ¶¶ 5-17. 9 After about two years of back-and-forth communications, in April 2022, former Shelton 10 Community Development Director Mark Ziegler sent a letter to Knockfierna detailing the City’s 11 position as to various disputed issues of building code interpretation. Pl.’s Attach. 1, Dkt. No. 18-2.

12 Ziegler purported to address the “substantive comments” provided by Knockfierna in a prior 13 communication, as Ziegler believed “they dictate[d] the path forward in the other comments.” Id. 14 Ziegler concluded, “I hope the additional information provides clarity to the City’s review of the 15 provided construction documents. An appeal process is codified in Shelton Municipal Code Section 16 18.05.010.” Id. 17 About four months later, Knockfierna responded with a letter that reiterated Knockfierna’s 18 arguments regarding the applicable Shelton Municipal Code (“SMC”) provisions. Pl.’s Attach. 2, 19 Dkt. No. 18-2. Knockfierna acknowledged the appeal language from the April 2022 letter but stated 20 that Knockfierna was not aware that the City’s position was “final” because the April 2022 letter 21 referred to “dictat[ing] a path forward.” Id.

22 Around January 20, 2023, Shelton Community Development Director Jae Hill sent 23 Knockfierna a letter titled “City of Shelton permit application for Knockfierna Cannabis Facility,

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Notice of Impending Denial.” Pl.’s Attach. 3, Dkt. No. 18-2. Hill noted that Knockfierna still had 2 not addressed the concerns raised in the April 2022 letter and reiterated the “outstanding issues” to 3 be resolved and “outstanding deliverables” required by the City for Knockfierna to move forward 4 in the permitting process. Id. Hill also noted that Knockfierna had failed to timely appeal the City’s 5 building code interpretations, as provided in the April 2022 letter. Id. Additionally, Hill stated that 6 the City would issue a formal denial of the permit applications in sixty days unless the City received 7 the requested information and corrections. Id. 8 Knockfierna responded to the January 2023 letter by asserting that it had already responded 9 to the City’s concerns and provided much of the information requested by the City. Pl.’s Attach. 4, 10 Dkt. No. 18-2. Hill followed up with a request that Knockfierna produce the materials that the City 11 had purportedly overlooked. Id. Knockfierna sent the City a binder of materials. Pl.’s Attach. 5,

12 Dkt. No. 18-2. 13 On October 9, 2023, Hill informed Knockfierna by email that the City received the binder 14 but the “binder contained simply a collection of communications back-and-forth with the City” 15 rather than the requested materials. Id. In conclusion, Hill wrote, “As such, the permits are 16 materially deficient and have expired. Your clients may resubmit for building permit approval 17 pursuant to current development regulations.” Id. 18 Ten days later, Knockfierna responded by email: “If your email dated October 9 [] is a final 19 denial letter, then this email is your notice that Knockfierna hereby gives notice of an appeal.” Pl.’s 20 Attach. 6, Dkt. No. 18-2. That same day, the City responded by email with information regarding 21 the administrative appeals process. Id. Knockfierna filed an administrative appeal on October 30,

22 2023. Pl.’s Attach. 7, Dkt. No. 18-2. The appeal was denied as untimely because it was not filed 23 within ten days of Hill’s October 9 email. Def.’s Ex. M, Dkt. No. 21-13.

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 Knockfierna filed the instant action in Washington state court in September 2024. Compl., 2 Dkt. No. 1-1. The action was removed to this Court. Ntc. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. Knockfierna sets 3 forth claims for a writ of mandamus pursuant to RCW § 7.16.160 and statutory damages pursuant 4 to RCW § 64.40.020. Amended Compl. ¶¶ 34-54, Dkt. No. 14. Knockfierna also sets forth claims 5 for due process violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 6 the Washington State Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 55-73. 7 Knockfierna now moves for summary judgment on all claims. Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 18. The 8 City also moves for summary judgment on all claims. Def.’s Resp. & Cross-Mot., Dkt. No. 20. 9 Additionally, the City requests an order finding that the City is the “prevailing party” on 10 Knockfierna’s RCW § 64.40.020 claim, and thus, the City is entitled to reasonable costs and 11 attorney’s fees. Id. at 16.

12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 14 to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the movant is 15 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Zetwick v. Cnty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017) 16 (quoting United States v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Acct. No. Ending 8215, 835 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th 17 Cir. 2016)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying portions 18 of the record that demonstrate the absence of a fact or facts necessary for one or more essential 19 elements of each claim.” InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir. 20 2020). “If the moving party meets this burden, the opposing party must then set out specific facts 21 showing a genuine issue for trial to defeat the motion.” Id. If the evidence proffered by the opposing

22 party “is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” 23 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (citations omitted). On cross-motions

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 for summary judgment, the court must consider each motion separately to determine whether either 2 party has met its burden with the facts construed in the light most favorable to the other. See 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Fair Housing Council v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 4 2001) (noting the court’s responsibility to determine whether disputed issues of material fact are 5 present). 6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 A. Knockfierna is Not Entitled to a Writ of Mandamus 8 Knockfierna argues that the City’s failure to adhere to the SMC’s mandatory timelines for 9 processing building permit applications necessitates the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel 10 the City to process Knockfierna’s applications. Pl.’s Mot. at 9-15. A writ of mandamus is “a rare 11 and extraordinary remedy.” Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 890-91 (2020). A court may issue a

12 writ of mandamus “to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance 13 of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.” RCW 14 § 7.16.160. 15 Knockfierna is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The City made a final decision on 16 Knockfierna’s building permits on October 9, 2023. It is true that Hill’s October 9 email did not 17 use the words “decision” or “final.” See Pl.’s Attach. 5. But even if the October 9 email was not a 18 clearly final decision, any ambiguity was resolved when the City followed up with Knockfierna by 19 providing information regarding the appeals process. See Pl.’s Attach. 6. 20 Knockfierna’s own act of filing an administrative appeal also contradicts Knockfierna’s 21 claim that the City never processed the relevant permit applications or issued a final denial. See

22 Pl.’s Attach. 7. Indeed, Knockfierna alleged in its administrative appeal that, on October 19, 2023, 23 Hill sent an email to Eric Carlson, Knockfierna’s counsel at the time, informing him “of the City’s

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 final denial of the building permit C246-20 along with the statutory-required notice of appeals 2 process and name of board of appeals and/or the hearing examiner.” Id. at 37. Whether the City 3 improperly delayed processing of Knockfierna’s applications is irrelevant. The Court cannot 4 compel performance of something that has already occurred. See Wiklem v. City of Camas, 31 Wn. 5 App. 2d 575, 586 (2024). Accordingly, the City is entitled to summary judgment on Knockfierna’s 6 mandamus claim. 7 B. Knockfierna is Not Entitled to Damages Pursuant to RCW § 64.40.020 8 Under RCW § 64.40.020, project permit applicants may be entitled to damages “from acts 9 of an agency which are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or exceed lawful authority, or relief from a 10 failure to act within time limits established by law.” RCW § 64.40.020. Knockfierna asserts 11 violations of RCW § 64.40.020 based on (1) delays in issuing Knockfierna’s permit applications;

12 (2) the imposition of improper permit conditions; and (3) the City’s failure to provide Knockfierna 13 with specific written reasons for not approving its permit applications. Pl.’s Mot. at 16-19. 14 Knockfierna fails to establish that it is entitled to damages for any of these reasons. 15 1. Knockfierna’s Claim for Delay in Issuing Permits is Time-Barred

16 Claims asserted pursuant to RCW § 64.40 “shall be commenced only within thirty days after 17 all administrative remedies have been exhausted.” RCW § 64.40.030. But when an RCW § 64.40 18 claim arises from an alleged delay in issuing a permit, Washington courts have interpreted the 19 statute of limitations to begin to run from the date on which a county should have issued a permitting 20 decision. Birnbaum v. Pierce Cnty., 167 Wn. App. 728, 733-34 (2012). RCW § 36.70B “requires 21 local governments to maintain regulations that require a permit decision within 120 days.” Id. at 22 733; RCW § 36.70B.080. The SMC similarly requires that “the city manager or designee shall issue 23 a notice of a final decision on a project permit application within one hundred twenty days after

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 notification to the applicant that the application is complete.” SMC § 17.06.040(A); see also id. 2 § 17.06.040(A)(1) (providing that, in determining the number of days that have elapsed after such 3 notice, any period during which the applicant has been requested to provide additional required 4 information shall be excluded). The 30-day statute of limitations in which to file a claim for delay 5 in issuing a permit under RCW § 64.40 therefore begins to run when project review has been 6 pending for 120 days. Birnbaum, 167 Wn. App. at 734. 7 Assuming that Knockfierna submitted a complete application to the City, and using October 8 9, 2023 as the date on which the 120-day notification period commenced, Knockfierna had until 9 March 7, 2024 to bring its RCW § 64.40 claim for permit delay. However, Knockfierna did not 10 initiate this action until September 2024. See Compl. Accordingly, Knockfierna’s permit delay 11 claim is time-barred. See Birnbaum, 167 Wn. App. at 734; John Ketch LLC v. San Juan Cnty., 759

12 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1129-31 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (addressing a similar RCW § 64.40 claim on a 13 motion to dismiss). 14 2. Knockfierna Has Not Shown that the City Imposed Improper Permit Conditions 15 RCW § 64.40 empowers permit applicants to challenge excessive permit conditions, which 16 arise when an agency imposes “requirements, limitations, or conditions upon the use of real 17 property in excess of those allowed by applicable regulations in effect on the date an application 18 for a permit is filed.” RCW § 64.40.010(6). “[RCW § 64.40.010(6)] focuses on the content of the 19 final decision, the permit, and nothing else.” Birnbaum, 167 Wn. App. at 735. 20 Knockfierna contends that the City’s refusal to approve the building permits was based on 21 improper considerations. Pl.’s Mot. at 15-18. However, Knockfierna fails to identify any evidence 22 23

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 || establishing that the permit conditions imposed by the City were in excess of those legally allowed 2 || at the time that Knockfierna submitted its permit applications. 3 3. The City Provided Specific Reasons for Not Approving Knockfierna’s Permits 4 Knockfierna asserts that the City’s conduct was arbitrary and capricious because the City 5 failed to provide specific written reasons for refusing to approve Knockfierna’s permits. □□□ 6 at 17-19. The record belies Knockfierna’s claim. The City clearly stated its reasons for not 4 approving Knockfierna’s permit applications on multiple occasions. See Pl.’s Attach. 1; Pl.’s 8 Attach. 3. Notably, Hill’s January 2023 letter denying Knockfierna’s permit applications included 9 a list describing the outstanding issues, which provided citations to the SMC and explanations of 10 the City’s interpretation of the relevant SMC provisions. Pl.’s Attach. 3. For example, the City 11 explained why it believed that Knockfierna’s planned renovations constituted a change in 12 occupancy: 13 14 1) Change of use/occupancy. The proposed use of a “marijuana processing facility” is an F-1 occupancy per the currently adopted 2018 International Building Code including Washington amendment WAC section 306.2. This is a change in the “character of use” per the currently 15 adopted 2018 International Existing Building Code section 506.1.1 from the previous use of “evergreen/floral processing”, which was also an F-1 occupancy and only approved for the 16 ground floor level. The second and third floor have never been approved for occupancy per the address file, therefore the second and third floor are a change of occupancy. The change of 17 occupancy requires compliance with applicable codes at the time of application for alteration and improvement of the structure, pursuant to the IBC. 18 Id. at 17. And after additional exchanges between Hill and Knockfierna, Hill informed Knockfierna 19 that it had not resolved the deficiencies noted in the January 2023 letter. Pl.’s Attach. 5. The City 20 is entitled to summary judgment on Knockfierna’s RCW § 64.40 claim. 21 C. Knockfierna’s Constitutional and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims Fail 22 1. The Fifth Amendment is Inapplicable 23 9A || ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT a5 ||

1 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies “only to actions of the federal 2 government—not to those of state or local governments.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 3 687 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 227 (1981). Shelton, not being a 4 federal actor, Knockfierna has no Fifth Amendment claim. 5 2. Knockfierna Has No Fourteenth Amendment Claim

6 For both procedural and substantive due process claims, a plaintiff must first show a 7 protected interest in life, liberty, or property. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1087, 1089 (9th 8 Cir. 2008). Knockfierna has not shown that it had a constitutionally-protectible interest in the 9 relevant building permits. The City is entitled to summary judgment on Knockfierna’s Fourteenth 10 Amendment claim. 11 3. Knockfierna Has No Washington State Constitution Claim 12 Like the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution 13 provides, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 14 Wash. Const. art. I, § 3. The Washington Constitution provides equal, but not greater, due process 15 protection that the Fourteenth Amendment. In re Personal Restraint of Dyer, 143 Wn.2d 384, 394 16 (2001). The Court thus analyzes Knockfierna’s due process claim brought pursuant to the 17 Washington State Constitution under the same analytical framework as Knockfierna’s Fourteenth 18 Amendment claim. Doing so, the Court concludes that Knockfierna’s state constitutional due 19 process claim also fails because Knockfierna has not shown that it had a protected interest in life, 20 liberty, or property. The City is entitled to summary judgment on Knockfierna’s Washington State 21 Constitution claim.

22 4. Knockfierna Has No 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim 23

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 “[I]n any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements 2 to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person 3 acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, 4 or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 5 527, 535 (1981). Furthermore, a government entity may not be held liable under § 1983, unless a 6 policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a moving force behind the violation of 7 rights. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978). 8 Knockfierna has failed to establish any rights violation. There can be no municipal liability 9 without an underlying rights violation. See Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1994); 10 Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020). The City is entitled to summary 11 judgment on Knockfierna’s § 1983 claim.

12 D. The Court Grants the City’s Request for Reasonable Costs and Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to RCW § 64.40.020 13 The City requests an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to RCW 14 § 64.40.020. Def.’s Resp. & Cross-Mot. at 16. Knockfierna argues that the City’s request for 15 attorney’s fees should be denied because Knockfierna’s claims are legally sound and brought in 16 good faith. Pl.’s Reply & Resp. at 9-10, Dkt. No. 22. 17 RCW § 64.40.020 provides that “[t]he prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this 18 chapter may be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.” RCW § 64.40.020(2); Manna 19 Funding, LLC v. Kittitas Cnty., 173 Wn. App. 879, 900 (2013). The award of attorney’s fees is left 20 to the Court’s discretion. The City is the prevailing party on Knockfierna’s RCW § 64.40.020 claim. 21 The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, awards the City reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. 22 23

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons: 3 1. Knockfierna’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt No. 18) is DENIED. 4 2. The City’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt No. 20) is GRANTED. 5 3. The Court GRANTS the City’s request for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to RCW § 64.40.020, in an amount to be determined at a later date. The 6 City is DIRECTED to submit a fee petition by July 14, 2025. DATED this 1st day of July 2025. 7 A 8 9 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT