The five Shelter Bay Community board directors sued by former community resident Jan Henrie almost a year ago are making another attempt to dismiss Henrie’s Skagit County Superior Court civil complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty and malfeasance.

Defendants Wendy Poulton, Monte Hicks, Louise Kari, Elaine Dixon and Joseph Hurley filed a motion for reconsideration Feb. 20, arguing she has no standing, or right to bring her claims.

Their attorneys’ motion for reconsideration follows a Feb. 8 order by Judge Laura Riquelme stating “the Court found that the Plaintiff has standing” at its first hearing, April 14, 2023. Riquelme decreed she “finds no basis to change that ruling.”

Still claiming Henrie does not have standing, the defense for the fourth time sought summary judgment, or dismissal of the case in favor of the Shelter Bay directors. Summary judgment motions were denied in August and December. The defense relied on its argument that Henrie lacks standing.

Henrie’s attorney’s March 1 response point out that the defense motion represents the “‘fifth attempt at a bite of the apple’” of “re-argu(ing) issues already addressed in the underlying motion.”

Case origins and first phase

At the first court hearing on March 31, 2023, Henrie’s attorney sought an injunction to remove these board members and prevent them from making financial decisions, including approving the community’s 2023 interim lease with the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.

Henrie’s suit alleged malfeasance and failure in these board members’ actions and conduct for passing the “invalid budget in violation of both the bylaws of SBC Inc. and the Revised Code of Washington.” It also alleges that the board “failed to mail the budget to its members as required,” so it was never properly ratified, and that the board’s following of this “undisclosed, improperly ratified budget” is costing residents “an on-going cumulative loss of over … $100,000 … every month in unauthorized and unexplained fee increases.”

Riquelme denied the injunction but allowed Henrie’s complaint alleging actual damages incurred to go forward. A stay, or halt to discovery, was placed on Henrie’s attorneys in August.

December and February court rulings

After delays due to defense attorney Paul Taylor’s unavailability, at a Dec. 14, 2023, court hearing the defense filed a motion for summary judgment.

The court again found Henrie has standing and denied the motion to dismiss. The court clerk’s summary note: “the fiduciary argument cannot move forward due to the stay of discovery. … notes discovery needs to move forward.”

Under court order, defense attorneys prepared a (Proposed) Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dated Jan. 10, 2024.

At the Feb. 8 hearing, Riquelme signed an order confirming Henrie’s standing; denied defendants’ request that Henrie improperly pursed a derivative action; denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment “as to the issue of standing”; and lifted its Aug. 25, 2023, stay on Henrie’s attorneys for discovery.

Sources close to the case have told the Weekly News that discovery depositions of the defendants are scheduled for late March and early April.

The defendants’ motion for reconsideration has to be scheduled and heard.