Okay, peeps. I have court documents related to the Burke case. Obtained via public records request in three parts. Part 1 is 108 pages. Part 2 is 111 pages. Part 3 is 48 pages.
I read the whole enchilada. Since I’m such a nice lady, I’m going to spare you the slog. And the legalese. Well, most of it. Here are the salient portions from the November 16 hearing in Superior Court, Thurston County:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, through their attorneys undersigned, that the Plaintiffs’ promissory estoppels, breach of contract, and Fair Campaign Practices Acts claims, may be forthwith dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to any party, pursuant to CR41.
I’m told that “stipulation” means the two parties have agreed to do something. In case you’re wondering.
If you really want to know, “promissory estoppel” means:
“The principle that if Person A makes a promise and expects person B to do something in reliance upon that promise, then Person B does act in reliance upon that promise, the law will usually help Person B enforce the promise.”
I was sorry I asked, too.
If you’re still awake, here’s the salient portion of the defendants’ reply in support of summary judgment. Submitted by Alexander Casey of the Christie Law Group on November 16:
Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence upon which a jury could conclude that Mayor Estes fired Burke because he supported Doug Street(sic) almost two years prior. Burke ignores his own testimony, mischaracterizes the facts, and tried to impute retaliatory animus to Mayor Estes when there is no evidence to support him. All the while, Burke avoids the process he received, the warnings he was given, the opportunities he was afforded, the seriousness of the investigation, and his own choices. His termination does not threaten public policy. Plaintiffs’ request that this Court set aside binding precedent in Blinka v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 109 Wn. App. 575, 36 P.3d 1094 (2001) regarding his Washington State constitutional claim is equally unpersuasive. This court should grant Defendants summary judgment dismissal on plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
In English, on November 16 the parties stipulated to dismiss three of the five causes of action Burke brought against the city and all those big meanies at city hall.
At the next hearing on November 20, Judge Erik Price bounced out the last two when he granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
There are so many non-issues here, it’s just bizarre. But we don’t have to wait to see where it goes. We already know.