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: