A second lawsuit has been filed against Initiative 1183, and a plaintiff's attorney is scheduled to argue for a preliminary injunction next week that would stop the state from moving ahead with liquor privatization.

Like another case filed in King County on Tuesday, the new lawsuit argues that I-1183 violates a rule requiring voter initiatives to address just one subject.

In addition to closing state liquor stores by June, the initiative deregulates wine sales in Washington, something voters didn't necessarily want when 59 percent of them approved it last month, said Michael C. Subit, a Seattle attorney who filed the case late Wednesday in Cowlitz County Superior Court.

"I'm willing to believe the majority of voters in Washington wanted the state out of the liquor business," Subit said. "That's not the point. Costco used that to stick in stuff that many people may not have wanted and many people may not have known about, like this radical revision of the wine sale and distribution system."

A hearing on a preliminary injunction to block the initiative from moving forward at least for now is scheduled for Dec. 16.

The measure, which became law Thursday, allows retailers like Costco Wholesale — which spent $19 million backing I-1183 and could bring in more than $80 million a year from liquor sales in Washington — to negotiate for volume discounts on wine.

That will hurt small retailers like two Red Apple stores represented in the new lawsuit, Subit said.

Other plaintiffs in the case are a landlord for a state liquor store who worries that he will not be able to find another solid tenant, and the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention.

They are not paying for the lawsuit alone, but Subit declined to say who else is contributing. The Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, which contributed much of the $12 million spent to fight I-1183, has declined to comment on whether it will pay for legal costs.

The coalition that supported I-1183, which includes the Washington Restaurant Association and others, also declined to comment beyond what it said regarding the earlier lawsuit, which was that voters understood the initiative.

The earlier lawsuit was filed by unions representing about 1,000 workers who are expected to lose their jobs if state liquor stores close.

Subit successfully made the single-subject argument against a Tim Eyman initiative more than a decade ago.

"This is exactly what happened in I-695," Subit said. "Someone took what everyone knew was a popular thing and stuck something on it that was a radical change to an unrelated area."

I-695 made the state's car-tab fee a flat $30, but also required all tax and fee increases to go to a public vote.

Melissa Allison: 206-464-3312 or mallison@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @AllisonSeattle.