By Miki Mullor
Editor

• The Washington Supreme Court declined to review former Councilmember Ramiro Valderrama’s lawsuit against the city of Sammamish.
  
• Valderrama sought $10 million to settle the case; the city had offered $75,000.
  
• Lower courts dismissed the case, citing no wrongdoing by council members.
  
• Allegations by political ally Stephanie Rudat were found to be hearsay and unsubstantiated.
  
• The lawsuit resulted in over $400,000 in legal costs for city taxpayers.
  

The Washington Supreme Court has declined to review a lawsuit filed by former Sammamish City Councilmember Ramiro Valderrama, effectively ending his legal battle with the city over its handling of public records requests.

In an order dated April 30, the court unanimously denied Valderrama’s petition for review. The decision lets stand a Washington Court of Appeals ruling that upheld a King County Superior Court’s dismissal of the case.

Valderrama filed suit against the city in 2023, alleging that officials violated the state Public Records Act by improperly withholding or delaying access to requested documents. His claims included accusations of coordinated interference by city council members and staff.

Among the supporting claims were statements by political ally Stephanie Rudat, who alleged misconduct by city officials. However, courts found her allegations were based on hearsay and could not be substantiated.

In December 2023, King County Superior Court Judge Paul Crisalli dismissed the case, ruling that the city had not violated the Public Records Act and that there was no evidence of intentional misconduct by city staff or elected officials.

Before the dismissal, the city offered Valderrama a $75,000 settlement to resolve the dispute. Valderrama declined and instead demanded $10 million — a figure that included penalties and attorney’s fees. The offer was rejected by the city, and the case proceeded through the appeals process.

In December 2024, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court concluded that the city’s records process was lawful and that Valderrama had not demonstrated any violation of the Public Records Act.

The court also noted that the statements made by Rudat were not admissible as evidence and could not form the basis for legal action.

Following the appellate decision, Valderrama petitioned the state Supreme Court for review. On April 29, Department II of the court—composed of Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens and Justices Susan Owens, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Raquel Montoya-Lewis, and Helen Whitener—considered the matter.

On April 30, the court issued a brief order denying the petition, with no written opinion accompanying the decision. The case is now closed.

The multi-year litigation required the city to retain outside legal counsel, respond to extensive discovery requests, and appear in multiple court proceedings. The city has spent over $400,000 on legal defense in the case, excluding the time spent by city staff managing the records requests.

The Supreme Court’s decision concludes a case that raised questions about transparency in local government but ultimately did not meet the evidentiary standards required under state law. Courts at all levels found no wrongdoing by city council members, no violation of records laws, and no legal basis for the claims advanced by Valderrama and Rudat.

The city of Sammamish has not indicated whether it will seek reimbursement of legal fees, and Valderrama has not commented publicly on the ruling.