Current conditions unavailable
Already reeling from a fire earlier this month, Stuffy's II faces another setback after appellate judges sided with the state earlier this week upholding the nearly seven-figure fines the Longview restaurant racked up during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A panel of three appellate judges on Tuesday upheld the $936,000 fine that the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries imposed against Duling Enterprises — which does business as Stuffy's II — for the 52 days the restaurant located at 804 Ocean Beach Hwy. defied emergency orders in early 2021 imposed by then Gov. Jay Inslee.
The restaurant says they remain focused on reopening after the Aug. 4 fire, and that they intend to keep fighting the fine.
Skai Hogue, granddaughter of restaurant owners Bud and Glenda Duling, said when reached by phone for comment Wednesday morning that the top priority for her is assessing the damage from the Aug. 4 fire and taking care of the restaurant's 35 employees.
"Our goal is to get up and running as soon as possible," Hogue said.
She said she heard from the family's lawyer Tuesday about the opinion filed in Division II of the Washington State Court of Appeals, but Hogue did not comment on possible next steps or legal options beyond that the family intends to keep fighting the fine.
Joel Ard of Bainbridge Island, who filed the opening brief for the Duling family in October 2024, did not respond to requests by phone and email seeking comment.
L&I spokesperson Dina Lorraine said in an email that the business, if they choose to pursue it, has 30 days from the court publishing its opinion to appeal their case to the state Supreme Court.
How did the fines reach $936,000?
Stuffy's made headlines in early 2021 when it was one of two local restaurants that violated the governor's emergency orders by refusing to cease indoor dining.
A second restaurant's fines and appeal, that of Creekside Cafe, was ultimately rendered moot when it went out of business.
L&I fined Stuffy's $18,000 per day it was open in violation of the emergency order — deeming each one a "willful serious violation" — and tallied 52 separate days. Ard's appellate brief argued that the $936,000 in fines against Stuffy's violated excessive fines clauses under state and federal law.
Judge Rebecca Glasgow disagreed in her nine-page opinion filed Tuesday, which Presiding Judge Anne Cruser and Judge Erik Price signed in concurrence.
Glasgow counters multiple arguments that Stuffy's made that the fine was excessive. Ard had argued that the fine exceeded the $5,000 maximum fine for a gross misdemeanor crime and claimed that the violations did not result in any actual harm.
The Washington law that authorized L&I to enforce the emergency order against Stuffy's had a range between $5,000 to $70,000 per willful violation, the court opinion notes.
The document walks through L&I's calculations. The state agency started with a base penalty and multipliers that factored in the size of the business and the gravity of the offense.
L&I reduced the base penalty for Stuffy's to $1,800 per violation because Stuffy's had fewer than 251 employees. It then multiplied it by 10 because the violations were willful.
"The $18,000-per-violation penalty is well within the authorized statutory range," Glasgow wrote Tuesday. "Moreover, L&I expressly considered Duling's culpability in determining the appropriate fine within this range."
The judges also state that Stuffy's failed to adequately demonstrate its inability to pay the nearly million-dollar fine.
"Duling submitted tax returns indicating that it operated at a loss in 2020," Glasgow's opinion states. "But this information alone is insufficient for us to conclude that Duling was unable to pay the fines."
Stuffy's got a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program, but the court opinion notes "there is nothing in the record about what savings or assets Duling had."
The appeals court also notes Stuffy's had "ample opportunities" to give added documentation that it could not pay the fine.
"Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of gross disproportionality," Glasgow wrote.
Still assessing smoke, structure damage
Hogue said the fire reported before dawn on Aug. 4 largely struck the back half of the restaurant, indicating that much of the fire damage focused on the kitchen.
Portions of the dining area are heavily smoke damaged, however, and crews are still going through everything, determining what's salvageable and what will need to be replaced.
"Right now they're just taking inventory," Hogue said.
She hesitated to provide so much as even a ballpark estimate as to when the restaurant would reopen because demolition work towards repairing the building can't begin until the inventory is complete.
By next week, she anticipates she will have a better idea of how heavily the restaurant's structure burned, along with factors such as damage to the roof.
"It's a big process that honestly we weren't prepared for," Hogue said.
