* Grady Austin, Respondent, V. King County, Et Al., Appellant

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
GRADY AUSTIN, No. 58124-8-II
Respondent,
v.
KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Washington, KING COUNTY
METRO,
PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
MAXA, P.J. – King County appeals the trial court’s orders denying their notice of
disqualification and motion for reconsideration.
Grady Austin sued King County for violations of the Washington Law Against
Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW (WLAD). Austin subsequently moved for leave to amend
his complaint to add an additional claim. King County stipulated to the amended complaint and
signed a proposed order granting leave to amend the complaint, and Austin submitted the agreed
order. The trial court signed the agreed order granting leave to amend the complaint.
King County then filed a notice of disqualification. Under RCW 4.12.050(1)(a), a
motion for disqualification must be filed “before the judge has made any discretionary ruling in
the case.” The trial court denied the motion, stating that it previously had exercised discretion in
the case.
We hold that the trial court’s entry of the agreed motion granting leave to amend Austin’s
complaint was not a discretionary ruling, and therefore the court improperly denied King
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
July 2, 2024
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 58124-8-II
2
County’s notice of disqualification. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying King
County’s notice of disqualification and remand for further proceedings before a different judge.
FACTS
Background
In March 2022, Austin sued King County, alleging that he was fired in violation of the
WLAD. In March 2023, Austin submitted a motion for leave to amend his complaint by
stipulation under CR 15(a). He sought to add a second cause of action alleging that King County
violated Washington public policy when they fired him. The motion stated that King County had
stipulated to this motion and its attorney had signed the proposed order granting leave to amend
the complaint. The proposed stipulated order was attached to the motion.
The motion to amend the complaint was noted for hearing on March 17. However, on
March 14 the trial court signed the proposed order. The court notified the parties that they did
not have to appear on March 17.
King County subsequently filed a notice of disqualification for the presiding judge.
Austin opposed the motion, arguing that the trial court could not be disqualified because it had
made a discretionary decision in granting the motion to amend the complaint. The trial court
denied King County’s notice of disqualification, noting that it previously had exercised
discretion in the case.
King County sought discretionary review of the trial court’s orders denying their notice
of disqualification and denying their motion for reconsideration. A commissioner of this court
granted discretionary review.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 58124-8-II
3
ANALYSIS
A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
RCW 4.12.040(1) provides that “[n]o judge of a superior court of the state of Washington
shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding if that judge has been disqualified pursuant to
RCW 4.12.050.” Under RCW 4.12.050, any party may disqualify a judge from hearing a matter
subject to certain limitations. One limitation is that a notice of disqualification1 must be filed
“before the judge has made any discretionary ruling in the case.” RCW 4.12.050(1)(a). “In
other words, an affidavit of prejudice is timely if it is filed before the superior court judge makes
any order or ruling involving discretion.” Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., 194 Wn.2d
957, 962, 453 P.3d 992 (2019).
If the requirements of RCW 4.12.050(1) are met, a party can disqualify the judge
presiding over the action as a matter of right. See State v. Gentry, 183 Wn.2d 749, 759, 356 P.3d
714 (2015). A timely notice of disqualification must be granted. See Godfrey, 194 Wn.2d at
961.
Whether a judge has made a discretionary decision under RCW 4.12.050 is a question of
law that we review de novo. State v. Lile, 188 Wn.2d 766, 776, 398 P.3d 1052 (2017).
B. DENIAL OF NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION
King County argues that the trial court did not make a discretionary ruling when it
entered the agreed order allowing Austin’s amended complaint. We agree.
CR 15(a) states that once a responsive pleading has been filed, “a party may amend the
party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall
1 What RCW 4.12.050 calls a “notice of disqualification” is also referred to as an “affidavit of
prejudice,” based on previous versions of RCW 4.12.050. E.g., Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine
Estates Ltd., 194 Wn.2d 957, 961-62, 453 P.3d 992 (2019).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 58124-8-II
4
be freely given when justice so requires.” (Emphasis added.) Leave of the court and consent of
the party are two alternative means of amending a complaint. In other words, a party has the
right to amend a complaint if the adverse party consents even without leave of the court.
Austin argues that the trial court could have denied the motion to amend the complaint.
But this argument is inconsistent with CR 15(a). Under the plain language of CR 15(a), a trial
court does not have authority to deny a motion to amend if the adverse party consents. Here, the
trial judge did not have discretion to deny Austin’s motion to amend because King County
stipulated and consented to the proposed amended complaint. Therefore, the trial court’s signing
of the agreed order to amend the complaint could not have been a discretionary ruling.
The phrase “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires” in CR 15(a) does not
suggest that the trial court had discretion to deny leave to amend despite written consent from the
adverse party. That phrase clearly applies only to amending by leave of the court, because the
word “leave” is only used previously to reference the court and not “the consent of the party”
clause.
In addition, a trial court ruling on a stipulated agreement is not discretionary so long as
the agreement affects “ ‘only the rights or convenience of the parties’ ” and does “ ‘not involve
any interference with the duties and functions of the court.’ ” Lile, 188 Wn.2d at 778 (quoting
State v. Parra, 122 Wn.2d 590, 603, 859 P.2d 1231 (1993)). Here, the agreed order only
impacted the parties and did not at all affect the trial court’s functions.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying King County’s notice of
disqualification.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 58124-8-II
5
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s order denying King County’s notice of disqualification and
remand for further proceedings before a different judge.
MAXA, P.J.
We concur:
GLASGOW, J.
PRICE, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.