Adrian Ayala, Et Al., Appellants, V. Leender Drywall And David J. Leenders, Respondents

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
LEENDERS 	DRYWALL, 	INC.; 	and
DAVID J. 	LEENDERS, 	individually and
on behalf of his marital community,
Respondents,
v.
ADRIAN 	AYALA, 	individually 	and 	on
behalf 	of 	his 	marital 	community;
CHRISTIAN 	BARRUETA, 	individually
and on behalf of his marital community;
JOAQUIN CADENA, individually and on
behalf 	of 	his 	marital 	community;
LEONEL CASTANEDA, individually and
on 	behalf 	of 	his 	marital 	community;
FIDEL 	CASTRO, 	individually 	and 	on
behalf 	of 	his 	marital 	community;
ABRAHAM 	JIMINEZ ARCE, 	individually
and on behalf of his marital community;
GABRIEL 	LARIOS, 	individually and 	on
behalf of his marital community; RAFAEL
LARIOS, individually and on 	half of his
marital community; CRUZ LAUREANO,
individually and on behalf of his marital
community; 	JUAN 	MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of his marital
community; 	GONZALO 	MACIEL
GARCIA, 	individually and 	on 	behalf of
his 	marital 	community; 	SALVADOR
MACIEL 	GARCIA, 	individually 	and 	on
behalf of his marital community; FREDY
OROZOCO, individually and on behalf of
his 	marital 	community; 	ANGEL
GUADALUPE 	OYTUZ, 	individually 	and
on 	behalf 	of 	his 	marital 	community;
ARTURO 	SOLIS, 	individually 	and 	on
behalf of his marital community,
Appellants.
No. 72595-5-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	March 14, 2016
ZX.
o
too
T>,73
m o
"-T,	n.
—<o
5
CD
V©

No. 72595-5-1 / 2
Leach, J. — Appellants (Ayala), all former employees of Leenders Drywall
Inc., seek expedited review of the trial court's order denying Ayala's motion to
strike 	Leenders's lawsuit under RCW 4.24.525,1 	the Washington Act Limiting
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). 	Because
the Washington Supreme Court declared this statute unconstitutional after Ayala
filed 	this 	appeal, 	we 	dismiss 	this 	appeal 	and 	remand 	to 	the 	trial 	court for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background
Ayala filed notices of claim on four public works projects where Leenders
worked 	as 	a 	subcontractor, 	alleging 	nonpayment 	of 	wages. 	In 	response,
Leenders filed this lawsuit against Ayala. 	Leenders sought release of Ayala's
notices and damages for various alleged torts; Leenders also sought declaratory
judgment relief and damages under the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86
RCW. 	Ayala moved to strike the lawsuit under Washington's anti-SLAPP statute.
The trial court denied Ayala's motion to strike. 	Ayala filed an expedited appeal.
This court stayed the appeal, awaiting the Washington Supreme Court's decision
in Davis v. Cox.2 We now review Ayala's appeal in light of the court's decision.
Analysis
In Davis v. Cox, the Washington Supreme Court declared RCW 4.24.525
unconstitutional because the statute violated a litigant's right to trial by jury: 	it
1 In its briefing, Ayala inadvertently cites to RCW 4.25.525 but refers to the
language of RCW 4.24.525.
2 183 Wn.2d 269, 351 P.3d 862 (2015).

No. 72595-5-1 / 3
allowed a trial court to resolve disputed factual matters and decide the merits of a
plaintiff's claim without a trial.3 	Leenders's supplemental briefing asked this court
to dismiss Ayala's appeal on this basis.
Ayala acknowledges the 	unconstitutionality of RCW 4.24.525. 	But in
supplemental briefing, Ayala claims that RCW 4.24.5104 standing alone provides
an independent basis for this court to dismiss Leenders's lawsuit. 	That statute
provides immunity from civil suits based on a defendant's communications with
government entities "regarding any matter reasonably of concern to that agency
or organization."5 	But Ayala asserted both in his motion to strike and in his
opening brief to this court that he was entitled to dismissal because Leenders
could 	not 	meet 	the 	"clear 	and 	convincing" 	evidence 	requirement 	of 	RCW
4.24.525(4)(b) 	to 	defeat 	Ayala's 	asserted 	immunity 	under 	RCW 4.24.510.
Ayala's argument both to the trial court and to this court regarding RCW 4.24.510
thus assumed RCW4.24.525's constitutionality.
For the first time in a supplemental brief, Ayala asserts that he is entitled
to dismissal as a 	matter of law under RCW 4.24.510, 	independent of RCW
4.24.525. 	This court generally will not review a claim not raised in the trial court.6
We decline to do so in this case.
3 Davis, 183 Wn.2d at 288-96.
4 In its briefing, Ayala inadvertently cites to RCW 4.25.510 but refers to the
language of RCW 4.24.510.
5 RCW 4.24.510.
6 RAP 2.5(a).

No. 72595-5-1/4
Conclusion
We dismiss Ayala's appeal and remand to the trial court for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
WE CONCUR:
J^ifr, 	/.