King County v. City of Sammamish

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KING COUNTY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF SAMMAMISH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-35642
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00921-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** Senior District
Judge.
This over-litigated case1 concerns the placement of stop signs at the points
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1 The Court suggested that the parties mediate the case with the aid of
the Court’s mediation program, but neither side accepted the suggestion.
FILED
AUG 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
where a recreational trail that plaintiff-appellee King County (the “County”) is
developing in a former railroad corridor intersects with two public roads for which
defendant-appellant Sammamish City (the “City”) has easements. The County and
the City disagree as to whether safety concerns dictate that the stop signs should
face trail users (walkers and bikers) or automobile traffic. When the City sought to
condition a construction permit on the County’s giving the cars the right of way,
the County took the position that it did not need that permit, withdrew its
application, and proceeded with construction.
After the City indicated that it would issue a stop-work order if the County
continued construction without the permit, the County filed an action seeking a
declaratory judgment that the City’s efforts to interfere with its construction
violated state and federal law. The City thereupon issued a stop-work order at the
construction site. The County moved for a preliminary injunction, which the
district court granted and the City now appeals.
The preliminary injunction provided that:
1. King County is authorized to resume construction of
South Segment A, including pavement and
construction of the intersections with 206th Avenue SE
and SE 33rd Street; and
2. The City shall not take any additional actions to impede
or delay King County’s construction of the
intersections at 206th Avenue SE and SE 33rd Street,
including any attempts to orient the stop signs toward
trail users.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
By its plain terms, the injunction applies only to the period of construction, and
King County has now completed construction of the intersections. Accordingly,
the appeal must be dismissed as moot. This dismissal is without prejudice,
however, to the County’s continuing to litigate its claims before the district court,
including by seeking to enjoin any effort by the City to relocate the stop signs to
give car traffic the right of way over walkers and bikers.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --