Aiken v. Sanchez

1

MORGAN AIKEN III, Appellant, v. ROCIO SANCHEZ and MARTHA BECERRA, Respondents.

No. 84115-7-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

May 28, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

CHUNG J.

After noise complaints were made against him, Morgan Aiken sued another tenant and the resident manager of his apartment complex for civil conspiracy, violations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA), breach of the implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, and other claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and sanctioned Aiken for filing a frivolous lawsuit, as well as under CR 11. It also awarded his fellow tenant damages under RCW 4.24.510 the "anti-SLAPP statute."^[1]

Aiken appeals the trial court's orders denying his motions to amend or supplement his complaint, to compel answers to interrogatories, and to delay the hearing on the motions to dismiss until after the close of discovery. He also appeals the court's orders dismissing his claims and awarding attorney fees and anti-SLAPP damages against him. We reverse the anti-SLAPP damages, but otherwise, we affirm.

FACTS

Aiken and Martha Becerra^[2] lived next door to each other at the same apartment complex. Their apartment complex's resident manager, Rocio Sanchez, called Aiken in December 2020 and told him about complaints that he was banging on the wall and "engag[ing] in loud sexual intercourse." According to Aiken, Sanchez then placed written notice of these complaints on his door in January 2021. Aiken believed Becerra had made the complaints because Sanchez told him the person who complained "has a five year old son," and only Becerra had a young son and lived near Aiken. After Aiken called Sanchez and told her there was no woman in his apartment and denied banging on the wall, the apartment complex took no further action about the noise complaints.

Nonetheless Aiken began a "daily log" of sounds he heard from his apartment that he kept for about ten days. The first evening's entries included "banging on the walls," "various conversations," and "snoring." After receiving two such e-mails Sanchez thanked Aiken but told him his "daily report is nonsensical" and he should report only nuisance behavior "as per your lease."

In February 2021, Becerra called the police to complain about Aiken's noise. An officer responded but determined the noise was not coming from Aiken's apartment. Later that month, Aiken filed, pro se, a suit against the apartment complex, Sky Garden Park Villa, and Sanchez. Those defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and Aiken responded with a motion to withdraw his complaint. The court dismissed that complaint without prejudice.

According to Becerra, in early July 2021, Aiken had her car towed using an authorization from his old lease, before the parking spot was reassigned from him to her. She also alleged that in August 2021, her car broke down and the mechanic who repaired it told her that a number of bolts had been removed from the radiator where it connected to the fan. The radiator also had a hole in it that looked like it had been made purposefully. Becerra believed it was Aiken who damaged her car, based on his other conduct toward her and his access to her vehicle.

On July 12, 2021, Aiken filed this lawsuit pro se against Sanchez and Becerra for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, violations of the RTLA,^[3]and criminal harassment. Becerra claims Aiken's lawsuit was a part of a pattern of harassment against her, including damaging her car, and following, monitoring, and surveilling her. Aiken then filed numerous documents, causing the case docket to grow to more than 200 entries. Among those entries were seven motions in early 2022 either to amend or supplement his complaint.

On January 19, 2022, Sanchez filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions under both CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185. On March 4, Becerra filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions, including damages under the anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.510. On March 10, Aiken moved to compel Sanchez to answer his interrogatories, and he moved to "delay [the] hearing until after [the] discover[y] period ends."

In April 2022, the court heard oral argument. The court granted both Sanchez's and Becerra's motions to dismiss. It also granted both their requests for sanctions, and it granted anti-SLAPP damages to Becerra. The court entered orders denying Aiken's multiple motions to amend or supplement his complaint, denying Aiken's motion to compel Sanchez to answer his interrogatories, and denying his motion to delay the hearing until after the close of discovery.

Aiken timely appeals all of the court's orders. Only Sanchez filed a brief in response; Becerra did not.

DISCUSSION

Aiken assigns error to the court's denial of his motions to amend, compel, and delay and to the orders granting Sanchez's and Becerra's separate motions to dismiss his claims with prejudice. He also challenges the sanctions the court imposed on him and the anti-SLAPP damages it awarded to Becerra. Respondent Sanchez requests sanctions against Aiken and his appellate counsel for filing this appeal.

I. Motions to Amend Complaint, Compel Discovery, and Delay

As an initial matter, Aiken assigns error to the court's orders denying his motions to amend or supplement his complaint, to compel, and to delay. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying these motions.

Aiken assigns error to the court's April 28 order denying his motions to amend or supplement his complaint. We review a trial court's denial of a motion to amend pleadings for abuse of discretion. Del Guzzi Constr. Co., Inc. v. Glob. Nw., Ltd., Inc., 105 Wn.2d 878, 888, 719 P.2d 120 (1986). Under CR 15, a plaintiff may amend his complaint "once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served." After a responsive pleading, such as an answer, is filed, a plaintiff may amend his complaint "only by leave of [the] court or by written consent of the adverse party." CR 15(a). "[L]eave shall be freely given when justice so requires." CR 15(a). However, a trial court may consider whether the new claim is futile. Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 901, 467 P.3d 953 (2020). And a trial court appropriately denies a motion to amend if an amended claim is duplicative or futile. Nakata v. Blue Bird, Inc., 146 Wn.App. 267, 278, 191 P.3d 900 (2008). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to amend where the proposed amended complaint contained "the same basic claims, based upon the same basic facts." Larson v. Snohomish County, 20 Wn.App. 2d 243, 286, 499 P.3d 957 (2021) ("The gravamen of the . . . argument was, once again, that [superior] court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.").

Aiken filed four amendments that he either subsequently struck or that the court denied based on "procedural deficiencies." After Sanchez filed her motion to dismiss, Aiken filed three more motions either to amend or "supplement."

Aiken's July 2021 complaint includes claims of breach of the implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, violation of the RLTA, and harassment and threats, citing criminal statutes, RCW 9A.46.060 and .020. His proposed amendment dated February 25, 2022, added Sky Garden Park Villa and Westland Associates as defendants and stated six claims: civil conspiracy, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of contract, "Intent to Commit an Unlawful Eviction," outrage, and breach of fiduciary duties. His proposed amendment dated March 1 asked the court to "disregard all previous Amendments . . . as this document supersedes them," and stated that he was filing the motion to add defendants Sky Garden Park Villa and Westland Associates and "raise new issues," identifying the same six claims as in his February 25 proposed amendment. The March 1 amendment also purported to "correct the misuse of criminal laws." Aiken's proposed amendment dated March 10 "address[ed] events which . . . arose after the complaint was filed" and added a new defendant, Ileana Garzon, whom he alleged removed his payment plan from his tenant record.

The court denied Aiken's "three current overlapping" motions to amend, and concluded the proposed amendments were futile "because they are not justified by the factual record." Its written order incorporated the court's oral ruling that denied Aiken's motions as "moot" because the complaint "fails to state any recognizable claim for any viable remedy."

On appeal, Aiken argues that adding Sky Garden Park Villa and Westland Associates as parties was not futile because they were liable for Sanchez's actions.^[4] Further, Aiken claims his retaliation claim against Sanchez was not futile because it was based on her actions after he filed his lawsuit in July 2021. Despite concluding that the amendments were futile, in deciding Sanchez's and Becerra's motions to dismiss, the court nevertheless "considered all the materials that have been filed," including Aiken's "overlapping" amendments. Thus, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motions to amend.

Next, Aiken assigns error to the court's order denying his motions to compel Sanchez to answer his interrogatories. Aiken also appeals the denial of his motion "to Delay Hearing Until After Discover[y] Period Ends,"^[5] which, on appeal, he characterizes as a motion for a continuance under CR 56(f).

We review an order denying a motion to compel discovery for an abuse of discretion. Barfield v. City of Seattle 100 Wn.2d 878, 887, 676 P.2d 438 (1984). We also review a trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue, 161 Wn.2d 353, 369, 166 P.3d 667 (2007), abrogated on other grounds by Cost Mgmt. Servs.,...