Tracy S. Mcnamara v. Karen Koehler

Court of Appeals of Washington·Decided August 6, 2018·No. 77157-4·Unpublished

Opinion

—FILED

4`C0tirIT OF APPEALS DIV I STATE OF WASHINGTON

2018 AUG -6 AM 9:22

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

TRACY S. MCNAMARA, an individual, ) No. 77157-4-1 )

Appellant, )

) DIVISION ONE

v. )

)

KAREN KOEHLER; AKA "THE VELVET) HAMMER;" JOHN DOE KOEHLER; ) JOHN DOE "HAMMER"; ) STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN ) KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER, a ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION Washington professional corporation, )

)

Respondents. ) FILED: August 6, 2018 )

MANN, A.C.J. —The fair report privilege is a conditional privilege that protects from liability for defamation a republisher of a statement made in the course of an official public proceeding, including judicial proceedings. Tracy McNamara appeals a trial court order dismissing her defamation and Consumer Protection Act(CPA)1 claims against attorneys Karen Koehler and Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore and Kahler (collectively SKW). McNamara alleged that SKW defamed her by posting false information on SKW's website about a pending wrongful death action that SKW filed against McNamara. Because the fair report privilege protects the statements made on

1 Ch. 19.86 RCW.

the SKW website and McNamara failed to demonstrate a violation of the CPA, we affirm.

FACTS

Karen Koehler, a partner at SKW, represents Jennifer Ralston and Caleb McNamara in a wrongful death lawsuit against Tracy McNamara for the alleged murder of Ralston and Caleb McNamara's father, Timothy McNamara. The complaint alleged that McNamara financially exploited and then murdered Timothy McNamara, her biological uncle, on December 25, 2014, in Belize.

SKW maintains a webpage dedicated to the Ralston v. Nessl, a.k.a. McNamara wrongful death lawsuit on the firm's website. This page features a picture of McNamara above the words "INTERPOL WARRANT." Next to the picture is a statement that Tracy Shannon Nessl[McNamara]"is wanted by the judicial authorities of Belize for prosecution to serve a sentence."2 Beneath the picture of McNamara the webpage states,"Murder & incest in Belize with ties to WA State: Defendant Tracy Nessl a.k.a. McNamara is a Grant County resident with a warrant out for her arrest/prosecution."

SKW's website also includes a webpage titled "Sample Cases." After describing the firm's personal injury and wrongful death practice, the page states "Below is a small sample of just a few of our over 150 cases resulting in at least seven and eight figures for our clients." The page then provides a summary of SKW's ongoing litigation on behalf of plaintiffs involved in the 2015 Ride the Ducks crash on Aurora Avenue, links to several settled injury actions, and then two ongoing wrongful death actions including the

webpage refers to McNamara by her prior name, Tracy Shannon Nessl. The parties refer 2 The

to appellant as Tracy McNamara. We also refer to the appellant as McNamara.

action against McNamara.3 Following that are multiple pages containing description of cases handled by SKW lawyers; some list settlement amounts and some do not.

In July 2016, McNamara sued Koehler and SKW for defamation and for violating the CPA. The complaint alleged that SKW's website was defamatory due to false statements about McNamara. The complaint identified the following false statements: (1) An Interpol Warrant exists for McNamara's arrest,(2) McNamara has been found guilty of murder,(3) McNamara had been found guilty of Incest,(4)SKW is responsible for obtaining at least a $10 million dollar settlement for its clients against McNamara, and (5)that Tim McNamara's assets at the time of his death included assets owned by McNamara.

SKW moved to dismiss McNamara's complaint under CR 12(c). SKW asserted that the information on the website was absolutely privileged under the litigation privilege and conditionally privileged under the fair report pri‘itilege, and that McNamara's CPA claim failed as a matter of law. Because the pleadings included multiple attachments, the trial court converted the CR 12(b) motion to a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SKW and dismissed McNamara's case with prejudice.4

3 The page states:

The wrongful death case involves an alleged murder of Mr. McNamara by Defendant Tracy Nessl (a.k.a. Tracy McNamara). The motive is believed to include Ms.

McNamara's wish to acquire Mr. McNamara's financial assets. These assets included the family farm, property in North Carolina and a bed and breakfast estate in Belize.

Jennifer Ralston, the adult daughter of the decedent(Timothy Patrick McNamara)and Caleb McNamara are Plaintiffs in this wrongful death case.

4 At the time of the trial court's ruling, the underlying wrongful death action against McNamara remained pending.

McNamara sought direct review by the Washington Supreme Court under RAP 4.2(a)(4). The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court.

ANALYSIS

Conversion to Summary Judgment As a preliminary matter, McNamara claims that the trial court erred by converting the CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a CR 56 motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

Where a court hearing a motion for judgment on the pleadings considers matters outside of the pleadings, then that motion must be treated as a summary judgment motion. CR 12(c). McNamara recognized the trial court's duty under CR 12(c) and in its opposition to the motion to dismiss, asked that the trial court either strike the attachments to SKW's motion or convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment. This is precisely what the trial court did. As the court explained, the "motion contains a great deal of evidence, and therefore the Court converts the Motion into one for summary judgment under CR 56. All submitted evidence is admitted and was considered."

While McNamara argues on appeal that she should have been afforded additional time and an opportunity to present additional materials under CR 12(c), she ignores that the parties stipulated to a briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss that allowed more time for the response and reply briefs than ordinarily allowed under CR 56(c).5 Moreover, McNamara fails to identify any additional evidence that would have

5 CR 56(c) ordinarily allows a party responding to a motion for summary judgment 17 days to file a response followed by 6 days for the moving party to file a reply. The parties here stipulated to a briefing schedule that provided McNamara 20 days to file a response brief and 7 days for SKW to file its reply.

been relevant to the court's consideration beyond the wrongful death complaint, the SKW website, and McNamara's complaint—all of which were before the trial court and attached to McNamara's appellate brief. Where, as here, there is no dispute of the underlying facts, and the questions presented are question of law,"[c]ompliance with the formalities of CR 56 was not necessary." Loger v. Washington Timber Prods, 8 Wn. App. 921, 926, 509 P.2d 1009(1973). This matter is properly considered under CR 56.

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and answers on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998). All reasonable inferences from the evidence are resolved against the moving party. Folsom, 135 Wn.2d at 663.

In a defamation action, summary judgment serves as an early test of the plaintiff's evidence. Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486-87,635 P.2d 1081 (1981). To defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff "must establish a prima facie case by evidence of convincing clarity." Mark, 96 Wn.2d at 487.

Defamation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tracy S. Mcnamara v. Karen Koehler, (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Tracy S. Mcnamara v. Karen Koehler (Tracy S. Mcnamara v. Karen Koehler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance
719 P.2d 531 (Washington Supreme Court, 1986)
Mark v. Seattle Times
635 P.2d 1081 (Washington Supreme Court, 1981)
Loger v. Washington Timber Products, Inc.
509 P.2d 1009 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)
Bender v. City of Seattle
664 P.2d 492 (Washington Supreme Court, 1983)
Short v. Demopolis
691 P.2d 163 (Washington Supreme Court, 1984)
Folsom v. Burger King
958 P.2d 301 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co.
736 P.2d 249 (Washington Supreme Court, 1987)
Alpine Industries v. Cowles Pub. Co.
57 P.3d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2002)
Folsom v. Burger King
135 Wash. 2d 658 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
Alpine Industries Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co.
57 P.3d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2002)
Clapp v. Olympic View Publishing Co.
154 P.3d 230 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)