Division Two of the Washington State Court of Appeals dismissed JZK, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Virginia Coverdale’s appeal of a court ruling last year.

The court granted the company’s motion to strike some of Coverdale’s court filings because “they append and refer to matters outside the record on appeal,” according to the court order. Coverdale has 20 days to file an amended brief omitting the stricken material.

Coverdale lost a lawsuit against her in Thurston County Superior Court last June. Judge Gary Tabor ordered Coverdale to pay JZK, Inc. more than $600,000 in court costs and attorney’s fees last July.

The state Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of enforcement while it decided whether or not to hear Coverdale’s appeal by direct review. The Supreme Court sent her case to the Court of Appeals, which denied her motion to keep the stay of enforcement in place.

“Although it does not come as a surprise, this decision is a welcome substantiation that Ms. Coverdale’s appeal does, in fact, have merit,” Coverdale’s lawyer, Breckan Scott, said in an email. “We are confident and optimistic as we proceed towards a full decision on the merits. Regarding the record, clearly the Court of Appeals’ position is that the case has merit even without the evidence relating to JZK, Inc.’s questionable relationship with local government officials, or it would have granted the Motion on the Merits. If the Court of Appeals decides that the case has merit even without the need for the additional evidence, I am not going to argue with that position.”

Recommended for you

(2) comments

Jeff Adams

If this battle were in reverse and this motion went in favor of JZK, Inc., the cult minions would be blogging, posting, advertising, etc.,, this like this, "JZ Knight wins big in court, again!" But since it went against them, they'll fabricate their own reality in other ways. Pfffttt!

AnangelF

Hi Pastor,

The NVN headline is somewhat misleading and Steven Wyble's court reporting is more confusing than edifying, but I think you jumped to the wrong conclusion here due to your wishful, biased thinking, and/or you didn't actually read the story.

"...the Court of Appeals...denied her (Coverdale's) motion to keep the stay of enforcement in place." In other words, the lower court may proceed to enforce its rulings against her. That is in JZ's favor, not Virginia's.

Paragraph two of this story indicates another favorable decision for JZK, Inc:

The court granted the company’s motion to strike some of Coverdale’s court filings because “they append and refer to matters outside the record on appeal,” according to the court order. Coverdale has 20 days to file an amended brief omitting the stricken material.

JZK, Inc had nothing to lose in asking the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. According to Wyble, the court "...dismissed JZK, Inc's motion to dismiss..." the case. As of this writing, the Court of Appeals had not decided whether or not to take the case and was waiting for an amended application from Coverdale.

This shows that in addition to your rude, unkind name calling, you are once again wrong in your assessment of RSE students.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.