Minutes Exhibit A
Minutes Exhibit A Port Commission Regular Meeting of July 11, 2017 " 11:11.50 am e . , T V N OPENCOOUR r11 HONORABLE JACKF NEVIN APR 15 2016 __ _ - - _. Pierce Co)? ciark/ _. _ 5 y" DEPUTY 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 0 HE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE 7 7' 12:1 TED SPICE, PLEXUS DEVELOPMENT No. 07-2-11635-0 it 8 LLC and DORIS E MATHEWS, + 9 Petitioners/Plaintiffs, FINDINGS OF FACT, 1 0 vs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND _ ORDER GRANTING CITY OF ,~ 11 W. PIERCE COUN'IY, a political subdivision, PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCI'IONS {T and CITY OF PUYALLUP, a municipal AGAINST ATTORNEY CAROLYN 12 a; corporation, A. LAKE 33 13 Respondents/Defendants. r! 14 \g "T 15 THIS MATTER "came before the Court on Respondent/Defendant City of 16 Puyallup's Renewed Motion 1221' Award ofCR 11 Attorneys ' Fees and Costs, dated August 17 28, 2015. Having reviewed the motion and all materials led in support and in opposition, 18 along with other pleadings previously tiled in this case, having considered the law ; 19 regarding Rule 11, having heard argument by attorneys for the parties, having rendered an 20 oral decision on December ll, 2015 and further explained that decision at a hearing on 2.1 January 15, 2016, the Court now: GRANTS the motion in part, nding a CR 11 violation 22 against attorney Carolyn Lake and awarding CR 11 fees and costs in the amount of $45,000 23 against attorney Carolyn A. Lake; DENIES the 'motion in part, nding no CR 11 violation 24 against Plaintiff Ted Spice or attorney Stephen M. Hansen or his law rm; and ORDERS 25 that naljudgment be entered on the fee award: r'iNDINcs, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY or PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND oooosrem LAW GROUP 1 [3 f'} Mathews had died, and to correct the improperly entered orders and judgment. 1'1 :' \OWHO'MJXWN 40. Instead the Court awards the City CR ll sanctions in the amount of $45,000, which the Court nds to be a fair and reasonable amount given the nature and extent of this . litigation and how far it was allowed to proceed before the fact of Ms. Mathews' death was _ disclosed, for Ms. Lake's failure to make a reasonable inquiry into the death of her client, \ :-' ~ . Ms. Mathews, and as a sanction for deterrence. This amount is a sanction award, and not intended as attomeys' fees and costs incurred by the City for the work of its attorneys (Walter, Yamamoto and Waldbaum). However. this sanction award may have the effect of 10 offsetting some of the fees and costs attributable to Ms. Lake's failure prior to ling the ll rst notice of appeal on October 10, 2013 to advise this Court or the Defendants of the 12 death of Ms. Mathews, which violated CR 1], as well as her misrepresentation on bleadings 13 led with this Court intimating that Ms. Mathews was still alive, and her continued signing 14 ofpleadings on her behalf following her death in December 2009, and for the other reasons 15 announced in the Court's oral decision on December 11, 2015. At least this amount of 16 attomeys' fees and costs would not have been incurred but-for the actions and omissions by 17 Plaintiffs' attorney Carolyn Lake following the death of her client, Plaintiff Doris Mathews. l8 41. Attorney Lake's actions following the death of Don's Mathews, without I9 advising the Courtl or the Defendants of he: client's death, were advanced without reasonable cause or inquiry within the meaning of CR ll, thus 20 entitling the City to $45,000 in sanctions, which may also offset some of the City's attomeys'fees and costs, and for the 21 reasons announced in the Court's oral decisionon December ll, 2015. In making this 22 determination, the Court specically nds: 23 a. That all substantive actions taken in this case relating to Doris Mathews, following her death on December 8, 2009, were null, void and without legal 25 effect; 26' b. That Ms. Mathews, and following her death her Estate, is a necessary and indispensable party to this lawsuit and to recovery under either the LUPA 27 claim or the Ch. 64.40 damages claim (the Court reaffirms its prior rulings in this regard); FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER ' GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP - 15 N Plaintiffs' counsel lf't Carolyn Lake had a .duty to engage in a reasonable . inquiry about the status (or death) of her client, Ms. Doris E. Mathews, and -\ \OOONQ'JIADJ failed to do so. Ms. Lake has offered no explanation as to why she did not make this inquiry; nor has she advised the Court when Ms. Lake knew of the death of her client M's. Mathews; Ms. Lake knew or should have known after a reasonable inquiry by at least 2012 when attorney Stephen Hansen associated in this case following his lawsuit against the Estate, that her client, Ms. Mathews, was deceased. This I]. fact was signicant; it was signicant to the Court, to the City and to the O other litigants; 7 fl. 1 Plaintiffs' counsel Carolyn Lake also had a duty to adyise this Court and the other parties promptly of the death of her client, Doris E. Mathews, who at the time of her death, was the fee title owner of the subject property, and that she failed to advise this Court or the parties of her death until, .9 at the very fl. earliest, October 10, 2013. To date, Ms. Lake has not explained why she CI never advised the Court of Ms. Mathews' death; 9: .:. .1 ,.- Ms. Lake never sought to amend the caption to delete Ms. Mathews 8 name, or to otherwise indicate that she had died, thus creating pleadings that :I. were M'- misleading and arguably false, and therefore a violation of CR 1 1; (3. Ms. Lake continued to sign each and every pleading following Ms. Mathews' death as if she was still alive, without any indication in her signature or on the documents that Ms. Mathews was deceased, or that she was no longer representing her, again, in violation of CR 11;. Ms. Lake continued to vigorously litigate this case following the death of Plaintiff Mathews, without legal authority to do so; and thus filed pleadings that were not well-grounded in fact and without legal effect; ' Ms. Lake's actions in litigating the case after Ms. Mathews' death were in violation of CR l1; The pleadings led by Ms. Lake after the death of Doris Mathews were not objectively reasonable and were prepared without a reasonable inquiry or investigation, and were without basis in fact or law, in violation ofCR 11; All of the pleadings led by Ms. Lake were on her law rm's pleading paper, and identied her law rm Goodstein Law Group PLLC; and The fact of Mathews' death was important, it mattered, it is serious, and it was a violation of CR 11. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR ll SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND COODSTEIN LAW GROUP? 16 '"s 1'3" 42. By signing the pleadings following the death of Doris Mathews and failing 0']. to disclose her death to the Court, Ms. Lake breached her certication obligations under CR J) 11, thus entitling the City to sanctions as a deterrent and to partially offset some of the \DOOx'lO'L/I expenses incurred by the City that would not have been incurred had Ms. Mathews' death been promptly disclosed. The pleadings and documents by Attorney Carolyn Lake 1 following the death of Doris Mathews were not well grounded in fact and were not 7C; warranted by existing law because she never disclosed to the Court that her 1 client, a 'l. principal owner, of_ the subject property, was deceased. Ms. Lake signed and presented 10 pleadings she either knew, or should have known were false, In doing so she ied ll "soap pleadings that were at least without merit and at most were false. These pleadings were 12 misleading to the Court and to counsel. Ms. Lake failed to conduct the necessary reasonable l3 inquiry before signing them. 15>. I4 43. In arriving at its decision, the Court had no information concerning the ,- ..-.',. 15 following: 16 a. The terms by which Ms. Lake's rm was retained to represent Ms. Mathews' interests, along with the interests of Mr. Spice and Plexus; 18 b. The date Ms. Lake learned that Ms. Mathews was deceased; 19 c. That Mr. Spice was a 25 percent owner of the property, that the Estate was a 75 percent owner of the property, or even that there was a split in ownership of the property following the verdict in the Estate litigation; 21 22 d. Why Ms. Lake did not move to substitute the Estate for Ms. Mathews, or bifurcate claims in the case, or le an amended complaint, or take any other 23 Court action to remove the deceased Doris Mathews from the lawsuit. 24 44. While the City is entitled to an award of sanctions under CR 11, the Court 25 nds that neither the Rule nor interpretative case law or other authorities provide 26 benchmarks or guidance as to how to compute sanctions under CR 11. CR 11 does not 27' require aspecic formula or method to calculate monetary sanctions. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP? 17 75 '5 1L CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 'l. 11"! euro 1. The conduct, actions and representations by Plaintiff Ted Spice did not amount to a violation ofCR l 1, thus he is not liable for CR 11 sanctions. 2. The conduct, actions and representations by attorney Stephen M. Hansen did \OOOQO not amount to a violation of CR 11, thus neither he nor his law rm is liable for CR '1, 11 C} '5" sanctions. :1. :l. 3. The conduct, actions and representations by Attorney Carolyn Lake, as outlined in the Findings of Fact section of this Order, did \liolate CR 1.1, and she is liable for sanctions under CR 1 1 in the amount of $45,000. 4. The original judgment, entered on December 13, 2013, for RCW Ch. 64.40 attomeys' fees and costs as against Plaintiff Ted Spice and Plexus is not necessarily voided, and that that specic question has not been presented to the Court. 5. CR 11 and interpretive authorities establish some general rules regarding CR 11 violations and sanctions, including (but not limited to) the following: a. A vioiation of CR i1 is not the same as a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not, but they are not synonymous; ' 1). Case law authority interpreting Federal Rifle of Civil Procedure ii is useil in interpreting and applying the State's counterpart CR 1 l; c. CR ll was adopted to deal with baseless lings and to curb abuses in the legal system. d. CR 11 does not just apply to lings; it applies to every pleading, every written motion, every legal memorandum led or served during any litigation, and it applies throughout the entirety of the litigation; e. If an attorney signs a pleading, motion Or other document in violation of the rule, the Court can impose an appropriate sanction against the attorney, the person represented, or both; FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP ' 18 ~+ 00xl0'L/ttstN f. At a minimum, CR 11 5=. requires attomeys to undertake a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before ling l any pleading or document; 0 g. An attomey's inquiry into the law and the facts must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances; h. The Court has broad discretion to impose an appropriate sanctidn under CR 11= and to decide against whom the sanctions should be imposed; 21. i. Sanctions under CR ll are intended to deter and punish sanctionable CI conduct, but are not a fee-shifting mechanism; and r 11 j. CR 1 l sanctiOns are available against both an attorney and the attomey's law rm, However, the court is satised by the IO representations of Ms. Lake explaining the nature of her ownership interest in the Goodstein Law Group 11 PLLC, that it is appropriate to exclude that entity from the imposition of CR "016 1 l sanctions. There court therefore imposes these sanctions against only Ms. 12 Lake. .- . f 13 6. Neither CR 11 nor ; interpretative case law or other authorities provide 'Es 14 1 benchmarks or guidance as to how to compute damages orsanetions under CR 11. In other 1"" 15 I; fee request contexts, one method is to use a Lodestar analysis to determine the 16 reasonableness of a fee request. However, CR 11 does not require this formula, nor does 17 the Rule mandate any other or specic method to calculate damages sanctions. 18 7. The Court concludes 19 the City'oi' Puyallup is entitled to a total award of 20 $45,000 in sanctions due to Attorney Carolyn Lake's failure to advise either this Court or 2] the attorneys for Defendants of the death'of Ms. Doris Mathews, a plaintiff in this case, an 22 owner of the subject property, and a client of Carolyn Lake and her law ofce. This award - 23 is made under CR 1 1 based on the Court record to date, the Findings and Conclusions set 24 forth above, and the reasons announced in the Court's December 11, 2015 and January 15, 25 2016 hearings. 26 27 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR ll SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP - 19 '1:- 5- III. ORDER RE: CR 11 ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS .'l. '17} GNUI-bMN IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendant City of Puyallup is hereby awarded $45,000 in as a sanction pursuant to CR 11 against - Plaintiffs' counsel Carolyn A. Lake. 1"_ WW") 7 J, E] DATED this [5' day of April, 2016. s 7" .'I \ 9 ,'I HONORAgLE JACK 1-: NEVIN 10 Judge of thc Picrce County Superior Court .E-B 11 {I C? 12 ' , FILED - 13 DEFIJS IN OPEN COURT 14 ."-t_|. 15 APR 15 2016 16 Pierce Col ty, Clerk ' By 17 DEPUTY . 18 19 20 21 22 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PUYALLUP CR 11 SANCTIONS AGAINST CAROLYN LAKE AND GOODSTEIN LAW GROUP - 20 EFILED IN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON September 24 2015 4:13 PM The Honorable Jack Nev/lin STOCK Hearing: Friday, September 25, 2015; 9100(3JNIY SLERK I0 With Oral AW'11335'0 UJ J)- 'JI 0\ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE \) TED SPICE= PLEXUS DEVELOPMENT, 06 LLC, and DORIS E. MATHEWS, NO. 07-2415354) '0 P'a'm'S/Pet'mners' COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT v. OF CITY OF PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 11 FEES AND COSTS PIERCE COUNTY, a political subdiwsion. and the QTY OF . Friday, September 25, 2015; 9:00 a.m. PUYALLUP, a mumcrpal corporation, With Oral Argument Defendants/Respondents. I. INTRODUCTION ln approximately 230 pages of Response submittais, Plaintiffs fail to offer any meaningful or relevant - opposition to the City's CR 11 Motion. This Motion is about whether Plaintiff Spice and his legal counsel violated CR 1 l each and everv time they led; ' pleading representing, Doris Mathews aer her death, to which the only answer is "Yes." The Motion. is n_qt about whether counsel had the ability to continue represent Spice and Piex'us, about CR 25 substitution, about violations of independent ethics rules, about "assumptions" of what the other of Plainti's' attorneys may have said or done, or about different cases involving different parties long-ago resolved in separate pleadings (the Michael Stanzel case, for example). The conduct in this case is so egregious neither attorney even attempts to address the facts or issues presented or the actual basis for CR 11 sanctions. Ms. Lake completely ignores the fact that she continually liled pleadings representing that Doris Mathews was still alive COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT 01? QTY 0]: Kan-mes, BUCKLIN & MCCORMAC'K, INC, RS. PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 11 FEES AND .octt'i'i'ro'ih'r'm COSTS _ 1 SEATILE.WASHINGTONMIM 3175 017-24 1635-0 1353555333? 1002-00053" 65372 don: and well for years after her death, without ever giving even a hint ofher client's death, and all to the while showing Ms. Mathews name as a Plaintiff on the caption of her pleadings. Reading b) Ms. Lake's materials, you would not even know that Doris Mathews was her client.l A Mr. Hansen now, belatedly, admits that he knew Ms. Mathews was dead long before \JO\UI he came into the case (which was on October 19, 2012 the date he served his Notice of Association) but claims that he "assumed" everyone knew Ms. Mathews had died and before the bulk of the litigation work occurred (2013). Astoundingly, he now says he should be absolved ofany liability or responsibility for Rule 1 1 fees because he purposely removed Ms. Mathews' name from the caption of his Notice of Association and Notice of Withdrawal and, 1o thus, based on this unauthorized alteration of the pleadings, everyone should have known he 11 was not representing a dead person. This despite the fact that he@ sign offon other pleadings 12 with Ms. Mathews' name on the captionz, was in receipt of virtually every other pleading with 13 her name on it, and that he represented to the Court and the parties that he was associating 14 with Ms. Lake in this "matter" ~- the case involving Ms. Mathews as a Plaintiff.3 And, even a 15 basic, reasonable inquiry ofthe Court docket in this case from 2013 to date shows that Doris 16 Mathews was his client as well. His only "defense" is claiming ignorance ofthe law, and that is no defense at all. And, he does not see any conict of interest in both representing Doris 18 Mathews as if she was alive and well in this case, and representing his co-plaintit'r', Mr. Spice, 19 on the opposite side of a lawsuit against her Estate at the exact same time. 20 The after-the-fact purported "expert" declarations by John Strait and Brian Krikorian 21 are purely legal opinions, are based on false or incomplete facts, are not in any way relevant to the CR-l 1 standards, are not based on a "more probablethannot" basis, and are rife with 23 ' Notably, neither Ms. Lake nor Mr. Hansen has produced - or even offered to produce 24 , an engagement letter, client contract, fee agreement, or even any written communication between them and Ms. Mathews from any point in time. This fact is signicant. The Court can conclude that no such agreement between either 25 attorney and Ms. Mathews was ever executed or exists. 2 See. e.g., Walter Reply Dec], Exh's. D F. 26 ' He intentionally omitted Mathews from the caption of this case without obtaining leave of Court, as required and claims that his clients in this matter were only Spice and Plexus, though his Notice of Appearance never 27 limited the scope of his representation. See, Waller Reply Decl., 11'" 5-9. COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT or c1rv or xemxc. Bucxuu a: McConmcx, me, as. PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 11 FEES AND m1hm COSTS - 2 ggsmgymind-5175 07-2-1 1635-0 Fax :20?) 22190:! 1002-Wh55372d0cx false assumptions. Neither provide a defense orjustication for counsel's conduct, and both wa should be stricken. The City's Motion is based on undisputed facts and clear documentary history. The Plaintiffs have failed to challenge the amount or computation of the fees and costs requested. UI Accordingly, the City's Motion should be granted and fees and costs in the full amount OWOOQON requested by the City ($312,181.86) should be assessed against attorneys Lake and Hansen, their law offices, and Mr. Spice and Plexus, jointly and severally. lI. REPLY A. Once a partyr dies1 the attornev client relationship ends [When a party to a lawsuit dies], the attorney for the ll deceasedparty may no longer represent her interests. 12 Stella Sales, Inc. v. Johnson, 97 Wn. App. 11, I8, 985 P.2d 391 ([999)4 (emphasis added) 13 (citing to Bingham v. Zolt, 683 F. Supp. 965: 976 (S.D.N.Y.l988) (death of client terminates 14 the attorney-client relationship, and attorney may not act further unless authorized to do so by 15 deceased client's representative). To this statement of clear law, which this Court has 16 acknowledged and applied in its July 20, 2015 Order, Plaintiffs have no retort. There is none. 17 At the time Ms. Mathews died, Plaintiffs' counsel failed to have any legal basis to continue to 18 represent-her and, thus, everv pleading led in the case thereafter representing that Mathews 19 was still alive, perpetuated a fraud on this Court. 20 Plaintiffs have submitted over 100 pages in declarations and exhibits to this Court 21 (almost all ofwhich have been previously submitted, are years old, and are not relevant to the CR l l Motion) and there is still one glaring omissionthe failure of Plaintiffs to produce an 23 explanation as to why they never disclosed Doris Mathews' death to this Court at the time she 24 died, and why they continued to represent that she was alive through every pleading led. So 25 long as the pleadings submitted (as well as the Court docket) continued to list Mathews as a 26 ' Mr. Hansen was well-aware of this established principle of law, since he was counsel of record in the Stella 27 Sales case. CONIBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF KEATING. BUCKLIN mCCORy-ACK, 1N0. P.5- PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 1 1 FEES AND mn'li'lvsuu'l'r'em. COSTS 3 sarraeowaswnc'rouwwns E ammm1 PM one) 221942: 07-2-l 1635-0 1002-000531185372 dacx Plaintiff with either attorney Lake or Hansen or both representing her, they were violating Rule 1 l. Om itting Mathews' name from the caption, as Mr. Hansen did and which he believes absolves him ofany responsibility under Rule l l, is not a viable defense.5 Throughout their Responses, Plaintiffs' counsel continue to distance themselves from L." Doris Mathews, diminish her relevancy and instead insist that they were acting "on behalf of O\ the remaining Plaintiffs Plexus and Ted Spice.'= Plaintifs' Response in Opposition to \l Puyallup 's Motionfor CR 11 Terms, at 23:1819. This is not the issue, and is not relevant to 00 the CR 1] violations. The City is not arguing whether or not Ms. Lake and Mr. Hansen could \O have continued to advocate separately for Spice and Plexus in this litigation. The basis for 10 the CR 11 motion is that Plaintiffs' counsel continued to represent that Doris Mathews was 11 still alive and a party and involved in the litigation each and every time they led a pleading 12 in this matter, since they never informed the CourLthat their client had died. it was counsel's 13 deleterious conduct in representing a dead person, contrary to black letter law. that directly 14 caused the (allegedly) "ballooned fees."6 15 The City had ajudgment for over $132,000 in hand, yet it came to this Court seeking 16 to undo that Judgment, since the only legal (and ethical) recourse was to do so to its detriment. r 1 Thus, Spice and his attorneys have been rewarded by the fact that they misrepresented to this l8 Court that Doris Mathews was alive and allowed ajudgement to be entered against her, years 19 after counsel both knew she was dead. As addressed below, Mr. Spice is conspicuously silent 20 on his role in this matter and in response to this Motion. The City has brought this Motion jointly and severally against Spice, Plexus and both attorneys, yet Spice has failed to explain 22 his actions. That silence can be taken only one wayhe has no defense. 23 24 5 Mr. Hansen's actions in unilaterally altering the caption of an already existing case. . without leave of Court should be viewed as even more deceitful, since he intentionally omitted the name of a plaintiff he knew was dead. 26 " Notably, all Plaintiffs have done in their Response is try to disparage and distinguish the numerous cases in the City's favor. Plaintiffs cannot cite a single case to suppon their claim that they could continue for four years to 27 sign pleadings representing a dead person without informing the Court of her death. commao REPLY lN SUPPORT or CITY or Ream. Bumm- & Mcconimcx, me. as. PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 11 FEES AND .oasfnri.l"atb..m COSTS - 4 SEATI'LE.WA3HM3TON "104-375 more maimmi "" mm" 07-2-11635-0 tom-009531135372 dacx Notwithstanding the condescending and disrespectful nature of Mr. Hansen's newly "\IQMAWN retained attorney's Opposition ("Hansen's counsel has operated for years in the crucible of the sharp tactics employed by Seattle law rms""), behind all of this bluster, there is no substance. The fascinating part ofMr. Hansen's response is that he somehow attempts to turn things on the City's attorneys, and argues that it was up to the City to do his iob for him.12 This is not "gotcha" litigation. It is a fact that Mr. Hansen and Ms. Lake continued to represent a dead person four years after her death. It is Mr. Hansen's and Ms. Lake's behavior which has sullied the Pierce County Bar, not the actions of the City's anomeys. \D D. Carolyn Lake's conduct at everv step of this litigation is grounds for CR 11 10 sanctions ll "Under CR 11, an attorney's signature constitutes a 'certicate' that 'to the best of the 12 . attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry [the 13 attorney's document] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law ...'." Bryant v. 14 Joseph Tree, 1120., 119 Wn.2d 210, 223, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992). In Bryant, the court was 15 inquiring as to whether the original complaint was well-grounded in fact and law. Here, each 16 and every pleading which continued to purport Doris Mathews as the client of Ms. Lake and 17 as an "alive" party to the lawsuit were not well-grounded in fact or law. 18 "CR 11 requires attorneys to stop, think and investigate more carefully before serving 1 and ling papers." Bryant, at 219 The court employs an objective standard to determine I. 20 whether a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe his or her actions to be 21 factually and legallyjustied at the time the pleading was submitted. Id. at 220. No "stopping 22 and thinking" was occurring. Ms. Lake believed her only allegiance was to Spice and Plexus, 23 and Doris Mathews was just an empty name to her. Unlike Mr. Hansen, Ms. Lake won't 24 identify when or how she became aware ofthe death ofher client. Like Mr. Hansen, however, 25 1' The relevance of this statement is lost on the City. 26 '2 Mr. Hansen also somehow believes that the City should have known by osmosis that he was representing the Estate because "we had tried the ownership [of the property] for weeks with the Estate right in the same 27 Courthouse this LUPA action was pending." Hansen Dem, f 1 l. COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF KEA'I'INQBUCKttnos: MC05MAO(,INC.,P.S. PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 1 l FEES AND .mets'tf-'stt'mm COSTS - 1 ] SEATTtnE'Ig'v'isi-mammouns 072-11635-0 m.';2'3;'i't3m' 1002-00363"85372 60: she refuses to ~ or can't - produce an engagement letter, fee agreement, contract, or even a WQQMAMN piece ofpaper, between her and Ms. Mathews. It is apparent that no such agreement exists. Astoundingly, Ms. Lake attempts to justify her actions and non-disclosure by claiming that "no offending conduct exists as notice of Mathews' death was not critical to the application of law in this litigation." Plaintis ' Response, at 10:23-24. Ms. Lake was without legal authority to represent Ms. Mathews, yet she continued to do so in each pleading led for four years after her death. Could there be more "offending conduct?" The pleadings led by Ms. Lake were baseless because she lacked the ability to represent Ms. Mathews after her \D death, yet she continued to do so without telling the Court of her client's death. 10 Ms. Lake signed every pleading on behalf of all three Plaintiffs, and never put any limiting language on her signature, or on any pleading indicating that she was signing for 12 fewer than all three. l-ler efforts now in distancing herself from her representation of Doris 13 Mathews is predictable. At this point, it is fairly obvious that Ms. Lake had no direct contact 14 with Ms. Mathews. She has not produced a fee agreement, engagement letter, contract or similar document. She has not produced any correspondence with Ms. Mathews. lt'se was 16 truly in contact with her client, the title owner of the property, she would have known that 17 client was dead long before all ofthe needless pleadings were filed in this case. 18 Ms. Lake's only response is to regurgitate the same case law she has used in opposition L9 to the City's Motion to Vacate the previous orders, for Summary Judgment, and for Failure to 20 Join an Indispensable Party. She cannot cite a single case authorizing her actions in 2] representing a dead person. The clear law enunciated in the Stella Sales case is that Ms. 22 Lake's representation ended on the day Ms. Mathews died, and she should have notied the Court and parties of this fact. led a notice of withdrawal, and not permitted the case to be 24 litigated for years after her client's death. instead, she continued to represent to this Court that 25 Ms. Mathews was alive and well and that Ms. Lake was her attorney. This behavior, directly 26 COMBINED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CITY or Km'rmc, 31mm & McConMAcx. Inc. as. PUYALLUP'S MOTION FOR CR 1 l FEES AND warmest." COSTS - 12 sgbmamggmmms 07-2-1 1635-0 'AX (20312215421 10m-OOW3I1 85372 doc:
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.