黑料福利社

A Yakima furniture store owner's lawsuit against the city has been revived because a federal judge gave the wrong answer to a question from jurors.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that Mark Peterson鈥檚 lawsuit against the city and several officials must go back to U.S. District Court, where jurors in September dismissed Peterson鈥檚 claim that the city targeted H&H Furniture for fire inspections because of his opposition to a planned downtown plaza.

In addition to the city, Peterson鈥檚 suit named former City Manager Tony O鈥橰ourke, who died in July, retired Deputy Fire Chief Mark Soptich and Fire Inspector Tony Doan.

Peterson began the process of closing the furniture store at聽213 W. Yakima Ave. this spring after 54 years in business.

Peterson鈥檚 suit, which was initially filed in Yakima County Superior Court before being transferred to federal court, alleged malicious prosecution and violations of his First Amendment rights.

Jurors found against Peterson in September 2022, and Peterson appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in October ordered the case sent back to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas O. Rice.聽

The appellate court agreed with Peterson that Rice misstated Washington law on malicious prosecution when, in response to a question from the jury, he said that a malicious prosecution started when a complaint was filed.

Under state law, someone can initiate a malicious prosecution without filing a complaint, and Rice relied on that misstatement in two subsequent answers to jury questions.

鈥淭he effect of the court鈥檚 responses was to eliminate the possibility of judgment against the defendants who took actions that might have led to the filing of the complaint but who did not themselves file the complaint,鈥� the court ruled, ordering the case sent back for further proceedings on the malicious prosecution question.

鈥淭hey cheated,鈥� Peterson said Tuesday when asked about the lawsuit. He declined further comment.

Attempts to reach the city or Megan Coluccio, one of the attorneys representing the city, were not successful.

Peterson, in his lawsuit, alleged that shortly after he and other business owners criticized the city鈥檚 downtown plans in November 2013 that Doan inspected his building, found that the basement showroom鈥檚 ceiling violated fire codes, and ordered it fixed within 90 days.

In court papers, Peterson said the ceiling issue was brought up in a 2002 fire inspection, but subsequent inspectors did not cite any violations.

Sopitch, Doan鈥檚 supervisor, upheld Doan鈥檚 findings in his report, court documents said.

Doan tried to conduct follow-up inspections of the property but was told that Peterson was not present, and he would have to reschedule when Peterson was there, court documents said.

The city filed charges that Peterson refused entry to building inspectors, a charge that prosecutors ultimately dropped 鈥渋n the interest of justice鈥� because Doan did not specify the scope of the inspection he sought to perform, court records said.

Prosecutors said he would need the owner鈥檚 permission only if he were inspecting parts of the building that were not public spaces.

The city argued during the trial that the fire code citation was not based on Peterson鈥檚 opposition to the downtown plaza plan, which voters and the City Council rejected in 2018. Instead, they said the case was about public safety.

Peterson closed his store in April, citing inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, the effect of the internet on retail businesses and other factors.