April 18, 2025 In a Seattle courtroom, a gripping legal drama continues to unfold as Elizabeth A. Campbell, a 72-year-old widow, grandmother, and self-described “serial entrepreneur” and “community activist” takes on the Swedish Cultural Center (dba the Swedish Club) and a roster of individual defendants tied to the organization. This case, now over a year in the making, is a clash of procedural tactics, discovery demands, and allegations that strike at the heart of a 125-year-old cultural institution. Here’s the latest chapter in this ongoing saga—and what it means for both sides.
The Procedural Backstory 2023 to 2024
Elizabeth Campbell launched her lawsuit on December 19, 2023, with a 238-page complaint alleging 85 causes of action against the Swedish Club and numerous individuals, including claims of discrimination, negligence, breach of contract, and more. Campbell filed an amended complaint on March 11, 2024, ballooning it to 476 pages.
The defendants, a mix of club members, board directors, and the organization itself, quickly pushed back. On April 26, 2024, they filed a CR 8 motion to dismiss the entire complaint, arguing it was too long, convoluted, and failed to provide fair notice of the claims—a move rooted in Washington’s Civil Rule 8, which demands pleadings be “short and plain.” They labeled Campbell’s filing a “Frankenstein” of allegations, hoping to kill the case early. But the court denied that motion on September 27, 2024, allowing Campbell’s case to proceed.
The defendants, after months of delays and a discovery stay from May 7, 2024, to March 4, 2025, regrouped for another attack. This time, they shifted tactics, targeting specific parts of her complaint rather than the whole.
The Latest Round: Defendants’ Motion to Strike – April 2025
On March 31, 2025, defendants Sharon Lucas, Langdon Miller, Kris Johansson, Gary Sund, and the Swedish Club filed a CR 12(f) motion to strike 181 paragraphs from Campbell’s First Amended Complaint (FAC). Under Washington Civil Rule 12(f), courts can remove “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” from pleadings. The targeted sections—spanning paragraphs 5.6-5.17 (Club General Profile), 5.53-5.100 (Board Ethics and Elections), and 5.195-5.318 (Club Finances)—detail the Swedish Club’s history, governance, and financial dealings. The defendants argue these are irrelevant to Campbell’s remaining claims, aiming to prune her case down to a more manageable size.
This move came after a year of procedural wrangling, including a failure to file timely answers to the FAC. Campbell had notified them of their default on March 26, 2025, prompting a last-minute flurry: a request for a four-day extension to answer, followed hours later by the motion to strike and an answer filed on March 31, 2025. The timing suggests a calculated effort to avoid default while launching a fresh assault on Campbell’s pleadings.
Strategic Play: Weakening the Foundation
The defendants’ strategy is clear: narrow the scope of Campbell’s case before it gains traction. By striking these paragraphs, they aim to:
Limit the Narrative: Remove background context—like the club’s mission, governance failures, and financial mismanagement—that Campbell ties to her claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and breach of contract.
Reduce Exposure: Minimize the evidence Campbell can use to paint a picture of systemic issues within the Swedish Club, potentially shielding key defendants like Kristine Leander, the former Executive Director, from scrutiny over her oversight and actions.
Streamline Their Defense: A leaner complaint could simplify their legal burden, making it easier to argue that Campbell’s allegations lack substance or relevance.
But is this a weak effort? Their previous CR 8 motion failed, suggesting the court saw merit in Campbell’s case despite its verbosity. This CR 12(f) motion, while more targeted, hinges on convincing the court that these 181 paragraphs are truly immaterial—a high bar under Washington law, where motions to strike are “disfavored” and sparingly granted (MacDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wn. App. 877, 884 (1996)). Without specific, paragraph-by-paragraph justification (which Campbell argues they’ve failed to provide), their effort risks falling short again.
Campbell’s Counterattack: Motion to Stay and Discovery Push
Campbell didn’t sit idle. On April 2, 2025, she filed a motion to stay the defendants’ CR 12(f) motion for at least 90 days under CR 26(c), which allows protective orders to prevent “undue burden or expense.” Her argument: ruling on the motion now, before discovery, would unfairly hamstring her ability to defend the relevance of those paragraphs. She followed up on April 8th with a robust opposition to the motion to strike, asserting that the targeted sections are vital to her 54 causes of action—from discrimination and retaliation to wage theft and premises liability.
Then, in a bold move, Campbell unleashed comprehensive discovery requests on all 16 remaining defendants. She’s seeking depositions, internal club records, employment contracts (notably Leander’s), board communications, and financial documents—evidence she believes will substantiate the very paragraphs the defendants want to excise.
Strategic Countermeasures: Building a Fortress
Campbell’s response is a multi-pronged defense:
Foundational Work – Evidence Gathering: The motion to stay gives her time to gather evidence, arguing that discovery is essential to prove the materiality of her allegations. She cites cases like Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co. (98 Wn.2d 226 (1982)) for judicial flexibility and King County Fire Protection Districts v. Housing Authority (123 Wn.2d 819 (1994)) to underscore that striking pleadings prematurely is a “drastic remedy.”
Fortify the Case: Her discovery requests signal an aggressive push to unearth facts—potentially damning ones—about the Swedish Club’s operations and leadership. This could bolster her claims and deter further attempts to dismantle her complaint.
Expose Weakness: By highlighting the defendants’ procedural delays (e.g., late answers and last-minute filings), she paints them as stalling, possibly weakening their credibility with the court.
Does Campbell have a strong case? She’s survived the initial dismissal attempt, and her detailed FAC—backed by over 350 citations to documents—suggests a foundation of evidence waiting to be fleshed out. Her proactive discovery strategy and legal arguments rooted in Washington precedent indicate a tenacious plaintiff with a clear plan. If her discovery yields what she expects, her case could grow even stronger.
What’s at Stake—and Why It Matters
For the defendants, this is a fight to protect the Swedish Club’s reputation and finances. A broad, unfiltered complaint risks exposing internal dysfunction or misconduct, threatening a nonprofit already struggling (per Campbell’s allegations) with financial decline and mission drift. For Campbell, it’s about justice—holding the club and its leaders accountable for alleged wrongs during her tenure as a member and employee, but also for the many other employees who were harmed by the failure of the Swedish Club’s board of directors to provide oversight of the executive directors, first Kristine Leander, then Elizabeth Norgren, who in the process frittered away now millions of dollars of Swedish Club funds; money given to the Club mostly by elderly folks who believed that the board and its directors were responsible stewards of money. That’s not how things have turned out.