The Seattle Times is reporting that a couple from Normandy Park is suing Toyota in federal court, demanding that the company either take back the vehicle they just bought or reimburse them for its loss in value since the automaker’s sudden-acceleration troubles became news.

According to The Times:

The lawsuit alleges that the issues plaguing Toyota violate the state’s Consumer Protection Act and amount to a breach of contract. The lawsuit is a proposed class action and, if certified by a federal judge, could apply to other Toyota owners in Washington with similar issues.

Read the full story here.

In the continuing saga of STITA vs the Port of Seattle, on Monday (Feb. 22nd), the Washington state Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the cab company by granting a temporary injunction against the Port of Seattle’s planned contract with Yellow Cab/Puget Sound Dispatch.

This means the Port cannot sign the planned contract “until further order of the Court” (click here to download/read the order as a PDF file), which could happen in April.

STITA’s request to expedite the appeal was granted by Commissioner Mary Neel. The Commissioner’s order states that this case will be heard by a three-judge panel “toward the end of the April 2010 term,” meaning that this ongoing SeaTac soap opera is far from over.

Members of STITA, who filed the original lawsuit against the Port of Seattle on Jan. 29, were obviously pleased with the decision.

“We are thrilled that the court stopped the Port from proceeding with an illegal contract,” said Jesse Buttar, a STITA member and spokesperson. “We’ve only ever asked for a fair process and a legal contract and now we hope the Port has finally listened and will re-do its flawed bidding process.”

Here’s more info from STITA’s press release, issued late Monday afternoon:

STITA, a non-profit co-op with one of the greenest cab fleet in the country, was created in 1989 by the Port of Seattle to exclusively serve the airport and provide reliable service to airport users. Now, after an unfair proposal process, STITA and its approximately 450 members and drivers will essentially be put out of business. They have the airport contract through August 2010.

STITA’s lawsuit claims that the Port’s bidding process violated state law by requiring bidders to commit to pay an unfair concession fee of at least 10 percent of their airport-based revenues to the Port. This revenue system violates the Airports Act, which says airport concession fees must be based upon the actual cost of operations and be reasonable and uniform. Previously, the Port had charged a per-trip fee to taxis based on the airport’s actual cost of services provided to the cabbies.

Additionally, the lawsuit contends that the Port’s new concession fees violate the King County Code and takes away from the King County Council’s authority to set “just and reasonable” taxi meter rates.

Despite protests from STITA to the Port about these glaring problems with the process and the proposed contract, the Port has so far declined to re-do its flawed contract bid.

A second lawsuit against the Port and Yellow Cab by Farwest Taxi was filed on Feb. 12.

Read our previous coverage of this ongoing legal battle here.

On Wednesday (Feb. 27th), STITA and Farwest taxi companies sent letters to Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag and Attorney General Rob McKenna, urging an investigation into the Port of Seattle.

This follows a recent, fast-paced rash of two lawsuits filed against the Port for its alleged mishandling of switching cab vendors over from STITA to Yellow Cab (read our previous coverage here).

The letter to the State Auditor asks him to investigate the Port’s handing of the entire on-demand taxicab RFP (Request For Proposal) process, which resulted in the two recent lawsuits.

The letter to Attorney General McKenna requests not only for an investigation of the Port, but also of lobbyist Chris Van Dyk, who is accused of collusion in the RFP process.

“It’s time for the auditor and the attorney general to step in,” said STITA spokesperson Jesse Buttar in a statement. “We hope they will take a careful look at the allegations against the Port.”

We got in touch with Perry Cooper, Media Officer for the Port, who said:

“Understand we have just received this and will review our records again…but we are still emphasizing that we are confident the RFP and bidding process was fair, open and transparent.

We have reviewed our approach continually throughout a thoughtful and thorough RFP and bidding process.

We are aware of no facts that would support allegations of collusion.

At no time during the process did anyone file an official complaint.

We were not aware of these allegations until the suit was filed.”

Both letters are enclosed below, and are available also for download here (both as PDF files):

• Letter to State Auditor Sonntag (PDF File)
• Letter to Attorney General McKenna (PDF File)

The Port of Seattle is apparently being sued by a second taxi company – this time by Rainier Dispatch (aka Farwest Taxi) for ignoring collusion.

This is the latest twist in an ongoing legal war against the embattled Port of Seattle, and Rainier/Farwest is now the second taxi company to claim the Port’s process for selecting a new on-demand airport taxi contract is illegal (as we’ve covered previously, the first was STITA).

According to a press release we received Tuesday, Feb. 16th:

Farwest Taxi filed a lawsuit last Friday (Feb. 12th) in King County Superior Court against the Port of Seattle and Yellow Cab, its former partner in a joint bid for the airport contract. The lawsuit claims the Port’s proposal process was illegal. The lawsuit says lobbyist Chris Van Dyk drafted the bid for Yellow Cab, the winning bidder for the on-demand airport contract. Then he turned around and used that insider information to draft a less competitive proposal by the No. 2 bidder, a joint venture between Yellow, Farwest and Orange Cab.

“The Port of Seattle and Yellow Cab should be ashamed of this whole process,” said Gurcharan Dhaliwal, president of Rainier Dispatch. “Yellow Cab and Chris Van Dyk took our bid information and used it to make sure they came out on top, and the Port looked the other way.”

According to the lawsuit, Van Dyk knew trade secrets of the two other bidders in the joint venture, and used that proprietary intellectual property to ensure Yellow Cab submitted the top bid. In addition, in its legal filing, Farwest says it explicitly told Yellow representatives that it did not want anyone who drafted the joint venture proposal to also draft a proposal for any of the three individual members. They said they were assured that would be the case.

The Port’s own RFP states: “One or all responses will be rejected if there is reason for believing that collusion exists among Proposers, and no participant in such collusion will be considered in future proposals for concessions at the Airport.” [RFP, 13.4.1, p. 6]

This latest lawsuit follows on the heels of a well-publicized lawsuit filed by the Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association (STITA) on Jan. 29. STITA, which has the exclusive taxicab contract at Sea-Tac Airport through August 2010.

Like STITA’s lawsuit, Farwest Taxi’s lawsuit requests a court order barring the Port of Seattle from officially signing a contract with Yellow Cab. It also seeks an order disqualifying Yellow Cab from future re-bids of the airport contract.

STITA members were encouraged that another taxi company – even one of their competitors – saw the same foul play and are now suing the Port and Yellow Cab.

“Here is yet another reason for the Port to hold off on signing the illegal contract with Yellow Cab,” said Jesse Buttar, a spokesperson for STITA. “We hope the Port takes the opportunity to go back and review this whole process. This illegal process directly affects the 450 families who make up STITA. We just want a fair shot at the airport contract.”

A copy of this lawsuit can be downloaded here (as a PDF file).

With more twists and turns than Maplewild Ave SW, Tuesday afternoon (Feb. 9th) the case of STITA vs the Port of Seattle took another turn – the Court of Appeals Commissioner issued an order that temporarily continues the Stay that is stopping the Port from signing an agreement with Yellow Cab.

An oral argument is tentatively is scheduled for next Friday, Feb. 19th, at 1:30 p.m.

The stay will continue in effect until the Commissioner rules on STITA’s motion.

So be sure to stay tuned, as this case is certainly a lively one.

Here’s a scan of the order for all you legal eagles out there:

In a fast-paced legal tennis match, after briefly having its restraining order denied, a State Court of Appeals Commissioner issued a stay late Monday in STITA Cab’s lawsuit against the Port of Seattle.

This means that, pending any other legal maneuvering, the Port will not be able to sign a contract with Yellow Cab.

Earlier Monday, King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez denied a restraining order filed by STITA to block the Port from signing the contract with Yellow Cab.

The contract for on-demand taxi service at Sea-Tac airport won’t be awarded until the court determines if the Port acted illegally. Judge Gonzalez heard STITA’s case Feb. 4th, and issued his decision Monday afternoon.

STITA vowed to continue fighting. They immediately took the case to the State Court of Appeals, which agreed to issue a stay – meaning the Port cannot sign with Yellow Cab until the legal issues are resolved.

The commissioner is expected to consider the merits of the case this week.

“We’re thrilled with this late-breaking win,” said Jesse Buttar, STITA cab owner. “We know we have a case. We just want a fair shot at the airport contract.”

On Jan. 29, STITA filed a complaint asking the court to halt the Port from signing a contract that violates state law. STITA seeks a fair and legal proposal process in which all bidders can compete on a level playing field.

In 1989, STITA – a non-profit co-op with the greenest cab fleet in the country – was created by the Port of Seattle to exclusively serve the airport and provide reliable service to airport users. Now, after an unfair proposal process, STITA and its approximately 450 members and drivers will essentially be put out of business.

In its lawsuit, STITA contends the Port’s bidding process violated the state Airports Act because the Port discontinued its prior practice of charging fees to taxicabs based on the airport’s actual cost of services provided to the cabbies. Instead, it required bidders to commit to pay an unfair concession fee of at least 10 percent of their airport-based revenues. This violates the Airports Act, which says airport concession fees must be based upon the Airport’s actual cost of operations and be reasonable and uniform.

STITA contends the Port’s bidding process caused a predatory bidding war among taxi companies which not only was illegal but will be financially devastating to the King County taxi industry.

STITA’s lawsuit also contends that the Port’s new concession fee violates the King County Code, which requires the King County Council to set the taxi meter rate at a level that is “just and reasonable.” The Port’s new concession fee cuts directly into the county’s taxi meter rate and prevents cab operators from receiving the gross receipts that they legally are entitled to receive.

Despite notice from STITA protesting these glaring problems with the process and proposed contract, the Port of Seattle declined to re-do its flawed proposal and said it would sign an agreement with Yellow Cab. STITA had no recourse but legal action.

PREVIOUSLY:

On Monday (Feb. 8th), King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzales put up the first roadblock in a lawsuit filed by longtime Sea-Tac Airport vendor STITA Cab by denying its attempts to stop the Port of Seattle from signing a contract with Yellow Cab.

The exclusive taxicab contract was held by STITA for 20 years in a no-bid deal. After a harsh rebuke from the State Auditor over its contracting processes, the Port of Seattle issued a “Request for Proposal,” or RFP, for the first time last fall.

Yellow Cab won the award with a bid of $18.3 million, which is $8 million greater than the bid STITA submitted. Yellow Cab was named a defendant in the lawsuit, along with the Port of Seattle and other taxi associations.

In issuing the ruling, Judge Gonzales noted that the RFP allowed for prospective bidders to file complaints, or injunctions, to any portion of the RFP document; Gonzales said, “The Plaintiff had the opportunity to file a complaint during the process, and they did not. They only complained when they did not win the bid.”

Yellow Cab will have to expand to meet its new agreement and may add up to 150 taxis, which could mean transferring over some STITA drivers, according to company representatives.

Without ruling on the lawsuit’s merits, Gonzalez said that STITA’s request for an injunction was damaged by the fact that it waited until after the bidding process to object. Had STITA won the contract, it’s “inconceivable” they would’ve sought an injunction, he said.

As we reported Feb. 1st:

In its lawsuit, STITA claimed that the Port’s bidding process violated the state Airports Act, because the Port discontinued its prior practice of charging fees to taxicabs based on the airport’s actual cost of services provided to the cabbies. Instead, it required bidders to commit to pay an unfair concession fee of at least 10 percent of their airport-based revenues. This violates the Airports Act, which says airport concession fees must be based upon the Airport’s actual cost of operations and be reasonable and uniform.

STITA contends the Port’s bidding process caused a “predatory bidding war among taxi companies which not only was illegal but will be financially devastating to the King County taxi industry.”

STITA has 216 cabs, 450 drivers, and claims to have brought in $10.58 million to the Port between 2004 and 2008.

On Monday (Feb. 1st), the Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association (STITA) announced a lawsuit against the Port of Seattle to stop the Port from “unfairly awarding” its airport taxi contract to Yellow Cab (Puget Sound Dispatch).

In the lawsuit, STITA contends that the Port’s bidding process violated the state Airports Act, because the Port discontinued its prior practice of charging fees to taxicabs based on the airport’s actual cost of services provided to the cabbies. Instead, it required bidders to commit to pay an unfair concession fee of at least 10 percent of their airport-based revenues. This violates the Airports Act, which says airport concession fees must be based upon the Airport’s actual cost of operations and be reasonable and uniform.

STITA has 216 cabs, 450 drivers, and claims to have brought in $10.58 million to the Port between 2004 and 2008.

According to a press release sent to us by STITA:

On Friday, STITA filed a complaint asking the court to halt the Port from signing a contract that violates state law. STITA seeks a fair and legal proposal process in which all bidders can compete on a level playing field.

“If you think it’s difficult to hail a cab in Seattle now, wait to see what will happen if STITA cabs are put out of business,” said Jesse Buttar, STITA cab owner. “We’re trying to make sure that doesn’t happen. We’re asking the Port to reconsider and allow us to fairly compete for the airport contract. We’re sorry this has come to legal action, but we STITA members are ready to fight against what we feel was an unfair process by the Port of Seattle.”

In 1989, STITA – a non-profit co-op with the greenest cab fleet in the country – was created by the Port of Seattle to exclusively serve the airport and provide reliable service to airport users. Now, after an unfair proposal process, STITA and its approximately 450 members and drivers will essentially be put out of business.

“People tell us to go work for Yellow, but we can’t,” said Kanwarjit Bassi, who followed in his father’s footsteps and drives a STITA cab. “We don’t have Seattle for-hire licenses and it’s nearly impossible to get one. We were prevented from expanding service outside of the airport by the Port and now it’s telling us to go away. But, there’s nowhere to go.”

In its lawsuit, STITA contends the Port’s bidding process violated the state Airports Act because the Port discontinued its prior practice of charging fees to taxicabs based on the airport’s actual cost of services provided to the cabbies. Instead, it required bidders to commit to pay an unfair concession fee of at least 10 percent of their airport-based revenues. This violates the Airports Act, which says airport concession fees must be based upon the Airport’s actual cost of operations and be reasonable and uniform.

STITA contends the Port’s bidding process caused a predatory bidding war among taxi companies which not only was illegal but will be financially devastating to the King County taxi industry.

STITA’s lawsuit also contends that the Port’s new concession fee violates the King County Code, which requires the King County Council to set the taxi meter rate at a level that is “just and reasonable.” The Port’s new concession fee cuts directly into the county’s taxi meter rate and prevents cab operators from receiving the gross receipts that they legally are entitled to receive.

“I’ve driven a cab for 35 years – mostly seven days a week,” said Patty Stephens. “It wasn’t an easy living, but at the end of the day I barely made enough to feed my family. And I could take care of sick children or go to their soccer games without getting fired. It’s the only life we know; my daughter and son both drive a cab too. We’re all out of jobs if STITA loses this contract.”

Despite notice from STITA protesting these glaring problems with the process and proposed contract, the Port of Seattle declined to re-do its flawed proposal and said it would sign an agreement with Yellow Cab. STITA had no recourse but legal action.

STITA’s complaint will go before a King County judge on Thursday.

STITA BY THE NUMBERS:

• Cabs: 216
• Owner-Operators: 283
• Total number of drivers, including owner-operators: approximately 450
• Founded: 1989 as non-profit association

Declining trips in 2009 do not reflect new light rail service to the airport and how it will likely decrease future cab demand.

Current per-trip fee paid to Port for airport pickup:

• $3.05 in 2009;
• $1.80 in 2010.

Current STITA contract ends August 31, 2010.

Revenues to Port:

• STITA, 2004 – 2008: $10.58 million

Number of on-demand taxi trips at Sea-Tac Airport

• 2004: 578,259
• 2005: 639,751
• 2006: 648,275
• 2007: 732,694
• 2008: 740,867
• 2009: 676,010 (estimate)

Members of the Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association (STITA) will rally against the Port of Seattle Monday, Feb. 1st beginning at Noon in downtown Seattle, in an effort to heighten awareness of the Port’s decision to change cab companies at Sea-Tac Airport after 20 years.

According to a press release:

STITA has no choice but to take its case to court to prevent the Port of Seattle from signing a contract with a competitor on Tuesday.

In December, the Port of Seattle Commission awarded a new five-year contract to Yellow Cab.

Now, more than 450 families face the loss of their businesses and livelihoods (while the contract is awarded to a big business monopoly, Yellow Cab).

STITA is a non-profit co-op of 216 cabs owned by 283 people. STITA was formed 20 years ago to solve a problem – the failure of for-profit taxi companies to provide safe, reliable taxi cab service at the airport.

Here’s info on the rally:

WHAT: Members of the Seattle-Tacoma International Taxi Association (STITA) will make an important announcement and take questions from reporters.

WHEN: Noon, Monday, Feb. 1st.

WHERE: South side of the King County Courthouse in downtown Seattle, 3rd and Jefferson St. (the corner of the park)

INFO: Attorney Michael Goldfarb will discuss the legal case against the Port, and cab drivers and their families will be available to discuss the devastating impact of the Port’s flawed decision.

From STITA’s website:

STITA was formed 20 years ago by the Port of Seattle primarily to service in-bound passengers to SeaTac and residents of King County. STITA prides itself on providing excellent service. We have nearly 200 taxis in our owner-operated fleet. At STITA, diversity is embraced and our cab drivers are very proud of the fact that they work for an organization whose owners represent a broad range of cultural backgrounds including: Indian, East African, Pakistani, Somali, Filipino, Ethiopian, Iranian, and Bangladeshi. Many may not know that STITA is a not-for-profit association comprised of over 145 minority-owned businesses, meaning that STITA is governed by a Board of Directors and does not have a single owner or leasing agent. Because our cabs are owner operated, STITA takes customer service very seriously.

At the Port of Seattle’s request, several years ago STITA stopped driving traditional gasoline powered vehicles and now has one of the most environmentally friendly taxi fleets in the world. We operate both hybrids (40 vehicles) and compressed natural gasoline taxis (120 vehicles). The use of CNG has resulted in a significant reduction of air pollutants.

On Tuesday (June 23rd) a class action lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court  that alleges that 19 Washington cities, including Burien, are overcharging drivers who get tickets via red light cameras.

Attorneys for the eight plaintiffs are seeking class-action status over a 2005 law that says traffic-camera fines “shall not exceed the amount of the fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction,” according to the complaint.

“The intent of the Legislature was primarily safety, not raising of revenue,” said the complaint.

The suit was filed by attorneys representing four Seattle residents, inclduing two from Lynnwood, one from Lakewood and one from Puyallup. Their fines ranged from $64 to $124 per violation. According to court documents, one man, Seattle’s Mark Contratto, was fined $124 over two consecutive days for failing to come to a complete stop before turning right at a red stoplight.

The plaintiffs will ask a King County Judge to order a refund of the difference between $124 and the cost of an ordinary parking ticket.

As we’ve previously reported, Burien currently sends out a $101 fine for red light infractions, with five cameras operating at these three intersections:

• 1st Avenue South at SW 148th Street
• 1st Avenue South at SW 152nd Street
• 1st Avenue South at SW 160th Street

The cameras operate 24 hours a day and capture still photos and video of every vehicle that runs a red light at the intersection. After being processed by manufacturer RedFlex, the videos are accessed by Burien police through a website, where they are analyzed by an officer who decides whether or not to send out a ticket.

As for expected revenue, the city is expecting at least $200,000 in revenue for 2009 and $250,000 in 2010; these estimates were based on what the revenue generated in other cities by similar red light enforcement programs.

The lawsuit has not yet been served on Burien, nor the other 18 cities named. Once these cities are served, each jurisdiction will have 20 days to respond.

Those wishing to join the suit can contact attorney Rob Williamson at roblin@williamslaw.com or 206-780-4447.

In addition to the City of Burien, defendants include the cities of:

• Auburn
• Bonney Lake
• Bremerton
• Federal Way
• Fife
• Issaquah
• Lacey
• Lake Forest Park
• Lakewood
• Lynnwood
• Monroe
• Moses Lake
• Puyallup
• Renton
• SeaTac
• Seattle
• Spokane
• Tacoma

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Burien’s Red Light Camera Citations Are “In The Mail”
• City Official Addresses Red Light Camera Concerns
• Red Light Cams Go Live Sun.;To Bring In $200k In 1st Year?
• Burien Speeders Beware: Red Light Cameras Start Mar. 1st

SOURCES:

• KOMO News
• The Spokeman-Review
  

Monday afternoon (June 15th) a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of area residents who are upset with Sea-Tac Airport’s third runway against the Port of Seattle, claiming that noise and vibrations from aircraft are over and above what the Port has promised.

The class action lawsuit claims that as the runway was being developed and built, planning documents stated that it was to “only be used as an alternate runway to reduce delays in bad weather.”

Lawyers from the firm Pfau Cochrain Vertetis Kosnoff, PLLC contend that the port mislead residents to believe that the statement in the documents would be followed. However, since the runway’s opening, the plaintiffs claim that the port is now using the third runway for both departures and arrivals, bad weather or not, and at all hours of the day.

The third runway is currently being used more due to the re-construction of the first runway, which is supposed to last through the summer. Lawyers say that a statement on the Port of Seattle’s website claims that the FAA, which maintains control over all runways, will not restrict the use of the third runway.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for lowered property values and also to prohibit airplanes from using the third runway on weekends and between 10pm and 9am on weeknights.

The suit also intends to restrict planes from flying lower than 1,500 feet above the plaintiffs’ homes and only allow no more than one plane to fly over their neighborhoods per hour.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Residents Plan To Sue Port Of Seattle Over 3rd Runway
• Third Runway Litigators Will Meet Sunday April 19th
• Angry Residents Voice 3rd Runway Concerns To Port
• Residents Accuse Port of Seattle Of Lying About 3rd Runway
• Highline Forum 3rd Runway Public Meeting w/Port Is Jan. 8th
• Next Third Runway Noise Complainers’ Meeting Is Jan. 10th
• Has The Third Runway Increased Noise In Burien? (Nov. 24th)
• Third Runway Noise Problem Not Fading Away (Dec. 5th)
• Third Runway Noise Complainers Holding Meeting Dec. 19th (Dec. 10th)

Over 150 area residents turned out Sunday to hear lawyers discuss an upcoming class action lawsuit against the Port of Seattle over the third runway.

by Jack Mayne

Big 757s taking off and landing right over your house can jar nerves and rattle lifestyles, yet a lot of people have to live that way every day – and many are ready to fight on in court.

“I can’t sleep at night,” said one person at a meeting Sunday afternoon at the SeaTac Community Center. “It got better for a while, but then they opened the new runway and now I can’t hear people in the room,” said another person, “or what is on TV.” Still another said people had moved from his rental properties and others said the value of their property, already hammered by the faltering economy, have gone lower because of the November opening of the runway.

Still another resident of the area told of flashing laser lights that “even after you get used to them, they startle you.” A spokesman said the Port would like to know more about this because there have been illegal usages of lasers focused at planes recently and it is working with police to find and stop this activity.

Anger and resentment is building in the area because people think the Port of Seattle is not keeping their promise not to use the new 8,500-foot runway except in bad weather or as a backup to the other two runways. The Sunday meeting was held so the downtown Seattle law firm of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Kosnoff could explain the class action lawsuit they are drafting that seeks to make the port stop using the runway for daily takeoffs and landings (see sidebar).

“The Port says they are operating within the law, but that is not true if it (negatively) impacts you,” said law firm partner Darrell Cochran to an estimated 150 to 200 people at the Sea-Tac Community Center Sunday afternoon. “We will be filing a lawsuit – June 15th is the estimate (when the suit will be filed).”

Area residents, some who have fought the Port and the runway for two decades or more, have complained of a variety of impacts, but what most infuriates people is that the third runway now is a main runway.

“What we hear is that the port has not told the truth on the third runway’s use as a backup,” said Cochran. “Every landing since it has opened has landed on it. We have seen documents that it will be in fulltime use – that the Port will continue to use it as a fulltime runway, even though the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was told it would be a backup runway.”

A Port of Seattle spokesman said there has been a temporary six-month closure of the airport’s longest and oldest runway because it needs to be rebuilt. The third and newest runway is now being used only in the interim fulltime. Airport spokesman Perry Cooper said Monday the project is costing $52 million in federal funds. The work is being carried out during the spring and summer months so that it is completed as quickly as possible.

A brand new control light system is being installed on the first (eastern most) runway because all planes using the other two runways need to cross it.

“It’s going to be noisier for a six-month period,” said Cooper.

Statistics by the Port on their Sea-Tac website show that prior to April 13, the number of landings and takeoffs on the new runway were close to the number of uses the Port had estimated in its Environmental Impact Statement.

“You’ll see that the runway use is virtually equal to the Environmental Impact Statement projection,” Cooper said, adding that the traffic on the third runway is up during the winter months when more separation between active runways is required.

“In the summer, those days drop off dramatically and would expect to lower the yearly average as compared to the winter numbers.” Cooper said.

When asked by nearby residents on Sunday if the suit should be against the FAA instead of the Port, lawyer Cochran said the Federal Aviation Administration “has immunity” because the decision to build the third runway where it is was a decision by the Port and not the government agency.

The Federal Aviation Administration controls the runways planes use for landing and takeoffs.

“The Port does not operate the runways,” Cooper said. “We built it and maintain it, but the actual operation of the runway, takeoffs and landings, etc. is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration.”

He says the Port “has been a proponent of the area community as soon as complaints were made and we went to the FAA and worked with them to make sure the operation of the runway has been consistent with the projections from the Environmental Impact Statement. That step also brought us to create the website with the usage statistics.

Members of the Federal Aviation Administration came to a recent Highline meeting to hear the community’s concerns, Cooper said.

The lawsuit lawyer, Cochran, said Sunday that people who felt they had personal injury cases against the Port should be gathering evidence to support their claim. For example, Cochran said people should take photos of soot on cars and surfaces from planes taking off or landing on the runway. They should document evidence of increase illnesses or other negative effects.

People should do this even if they have not yet decided on making a claim or filing a suit.

So, what do YOU think of this class action lawsuit against the Port of Seattle? Please answer our poll:

PREVIOUS COVERAGE:

• Third Runway Litigators Will Meet Sunday April 19th
• Angry Residents Voice 3rd Runway Concerns To Port
• Residents Accuse Port of Seattle Of Lying About 3rd Runway
• Highline Forum 3rd Runway Public Meeting w/Port Is Jan. 8th
• Next Third Runway Noise Complainers’ Meeting Is Jan. 10th
• Third Runway Noise Complainers Holding Meeting Dec. 19th
• Third Runway Noise Problem Not Fading Away

Jack Mayne is a freelance writer and editor and may be reached at jgmayne@gmail.com

Residents in the path of Sea-Tac Airport’s third runway, negatively affected by increased noise and toxic fumes, are meeting with attorneys on Sunday, April 19th to prepare a lawsuit against the Port of Seattle.

The meeting will be held at 2:30pm, Sunday at the SeaTac Community Center, located at 13735 24th Ave. South in SeaTac. Area homeowners are invited. Trial attorneys Michael Pfau and Darrell Cochran, known for a string of successful, high-profile verdicts and settlements, are partnering with Seattle personal-injury attorney Will Dixon.

Sunday’s meeting is a discussion of homeowners’ rights, and potential remedies available under the law. Concerned residents living near the third runway’s flight path first contacted and met with attorneys on Jan. 10th.

Sea-Tac Airport’s third runway went into use Nov. 20th, 2008. Originally, Port of Seattle officials stated in planning documents, such as the environmental impact statement, that the new $1 billion runway was needed to reduce delays during poor weather. But in recent public statements, port officials have said the third runway was always intended to be used at high-traffic times and 365 days a year.

Local homeowners believe the situation will only worsen as departing planes – not just incoming flights – use the new runway. Also, the port plans to shift more traffic to the third runway as it rebuilds the eastern runway.

There are at least two potential lawsuits that are likely to be filed by homeowners. The first, a class-action lawsuit, would focus on the legal principle of inverse condemnation. Basically, plaintiffs believe the fair-market value of their property has been diminished by government “takings” or damages – in this case, by the dramatic increase of planes flying the area for third runway take-offs and landings. Plaintiffs would seek to recover just compensation for damages based on measurably diminished property values.

The second case would be a nuisance or damages lawsuit representing individuals seeking compensation for personal injuries. Local homeowners say throughout the day, big commercial jets are flying over their homes, coating their lawns with jet fuel particles and leaving a wake of toxic fumes.

Michael Pfau and Darrell Cochran are partners at the law firm of Pfau, Cochran, Vertetis, Kosnoff. Pfau and Cochran have years experience in personal injury and class-action lawsuits. In February, Pfau and Cochran secured a $14.2 million settlement from the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and a New York-based Catholic order on behalf of two dozen men, who were sexually abused at a Kent orphanage, the Briscoe Memorial School, during the 1950s and 1960s. In 2007, Cochran secured a $13.5 million settlement on behalf of thousands of Washington state students affected by the abrupt closing of the now-defunct Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI).

Earlier this year, Cochran and Pfau left their longtime law office of Gordon Thomas Honeywell to open their own firm, with offices in Seattle and Tacoma.

Will Dixon is a seasoned lawyer with more than a decade of legal experience representing clients in numerous multi-million dollar cases in Washington state and federal courts. Dixon focuses on personal injury, wrongful death, and commercial litigation. Dixon also worked in Gordon Thomas Honeywell’s trial group with Pfau and Cochran before opening his open firm. (Dixon Law Firm, http://www.dixon-law.com)

The meeting will be held in the Banquet Room of the SeaTac Community Center, which is located at 13735 24th Ave South:

View Larger Map

The Seattle P-I is reporting about an impending lawsuit against the Highline School District over what the mother of a deceased boy alleges as a flourishing “handgun trade” at Highline High School.

Here are some snippets from the story, which you can read in full here:

The mother of a 17-year-old Seattle boy shot to death by his stepbrother has filed suit against the shooter’s family and the Highline School District, where she alleges school officials negligently allowed a handgun trade to “flourish” — a charge attorneys for the district strenuously deny.

In court papers, Lucero’s suit follows the gun used to kill her son and argues that those who failed to stop its movement — including Tautua-Jantoc — should be held responsible for Michael Miller’s death.

According to police reports filed following the shooting, Tautua-Jantoc took a Glock pistol from his father’s collection of weapons some time prior to the shooting. Thomas Baisch, an attorney for Lucero, now contends that the boy kept the gun at Highline High School for weeks before he traded it for the gun that killed Michael Miller.

Highline School District attorney Jerry Moberg disputed Baisch’s claim, saying he’s seen no evidence to support either the allegation that Tautua-Jantoc acquired the gun at the school or that school officials allowed a gun trade to “flourish.”

A special Highline Forum public meeting on the newly-opened third runway with Port of Seattle officials will be held this Thursday, Dec. 18th, from 9am to 10am at the conference room on the mezzanine level near the south terminal at Sea-Tac Airport.

The intent of this meeting will be for city officials to discuss whether the newly-opened and controversial third runway is being used as the Port promised it would be – on “severe weather” days only, as well as how many planes are landing on it and subsequent noise complaints from area residents.

According to our source:

This meeting is “public,” so all can attend but NOT participate or speak.

It is imperative we understand this or the meeting will end immediately with nothing accomplished.

We must speak through our local cities’ electeds at this Forum which is fine by me.

Our previous coverage of area residents’ complaints about the third runway include these stories:

• Has The Third Runway Increased Noise In Burien? (Nov. 24th)
• Third Runway Noise Problem Not Fading Away (Dec. 5th)
• Third Runway Noise Complainers Holding Meeting Dec. 19th (Dec. 10th)

The Seattle Times has an article which quotes Bob Sheckler, co-chairman of the Highline Forum, as saying:

“If we don’t like the answers, then we are going to aggressively go after the Port for additional mitigation.”

That full story can be read here.

If you’re an area resident who thinks the noise from the third runway is too loud, our best advice is for you to call the Port of Seattle’s “Noise Hotline,” which operates 24/7, day or night:

206-433-5393

or

1-800-826-1147

According to The Seattle Times, a federal jury awarded $60,000 to a 53-year-old accountant who got tasered by Normandy Park police after he tried to talk to the police chief about being treated “rudely.”

The victim, an accountant named Kevin Bonner, was tasered by Normandy Park Detective John Lievero, who, according to the decision, used “excessive force” as well as conduct considered “malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard” of his civil rights at the Normandy Park police station in April 2005.

This begs the question, and we don’t mean to make fun of this situation as we know how dangerous tasers are (feel free to respond in Comments below or email us):

Would you willingly be tasered if the reward was $60K?

The full story is here.

Everyone’s favorite, hood-adjacent-named roller derby clan, the Rat City Roller Girls, have emerged victorious (by termination default) in a lawsuit over their logo filed by Starbucks.

According to the lawsuit, Starbucks believed that the RCRG logo was “too similar” to their logo, what with its highly-unusual usage of the “circle with a lady inside it” concept (albeit a black-eyed tough derby girl vs a contortionist mermaid).

This means that this ding-dang great logo:

Apparently does not infringe on this one:

Yeah Roller Girls – way to kick some corporate ass!