Archive - Miscellaneous

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

November 20, 2017

Summary Judgment Dismissal of Collection Class Action

Marc Rosenberg won summary judgment dismissal in Alcock v. AAC, King County Superior Court.  Plaintiffs brought a putative class action lawsuit, alleging that medical debt is an unliquidated sum since the amount to be charged is unknown when the services are rendered, and therefore the assessment of prejudgment interest in collection letters violated RCW 19.16.250(15) and (21) of the Washington Collection Agency Act, which they alleged was a per se violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.   The superior court entered summary judgment after Marc argued that: (1) the amount was liquidated by the time judgment was entered in an underlying collection action, (2) the judgment in the collection action was res judicata as to interest, (3) interest was properly charged as the hospital consents were contract that permitted it, (4) interest was permitted as a forbearance under RCW 19.52.010(1), and (5)  the Plaintiffs failed to meet elements of their Consumer Protection Act claim.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

September 25, 2017

Summary Judgement in Deed of Trust Dispute

Marc Rosenberg won summary judgment dismissal in Arnot v. Trustee in Oregon federal court. A successor trustee on a deed of trust foreclosed on a debtor’s property. Later, the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee challenged the foreclosure. Marc argued that when the debtor had formerly declared bankruptcy, that trustee abandoned the asset when he closed the bankruptcy. The court denied and granted summary judgment in favor of Marc’s client, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

Summary Judgement in Fraud Case

Joel E. Wright and James T. Graves won summary judgment in Fotinos v. Coldwell Banker Kline & Associates. Plaintiff sued his real estate brokerage and others for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and Consumer Protection Act violations. On behalf of the broker, Joel and James argued that plaintiff could not prove the necessary element of justifiable reliance, that the broker knew of the claimed defects, or essential elements of a CPA violation claim. The court agreed, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

March 29, 2017

Defense Verdict

Steven G. Wraith and Jonathan J. Loch obtained a defense verdict in Luther v. Bloomfield in King County Superior Court. Plaintiff sued a package delivery service and its employee for personal injuries arising out of an alleged rear-end motor vehicle accident on Interstate 5 in South Seattle.  Plaintiff claimed lumbosacral strain and herniated discs. He rejected a $40,000 settlement offer before trial and asked the jury for damages of $750,000. After a 5-day trial, the jury deliberated for 35 minutes and found that Steve’s clients were not negligent.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

December 27, 2016

Super Lawyers

The National Super Lawyers Business Edition 2016 magazine identifies the top 5% of attorneys in each state by various practice areas.  Congratulations to four Lee Smart attorneys in the top 5% in Washington!

Civil Litigation, Defense:  Michelle Corsi

Professional Liability, Defense:  Joel Wright, Jeff Downer, and Sam Franklin

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

November 23, 2016

Summary Judgment Dismissal

Steve Wraith and Kellan Byrne won summary judgment dismissal in the case of Lindsay v. Azose Commercial Properties, Inc.  The case involved a triple homicide that took place at a bar located in a shopping plaza.  Steve and Kellan represented the property management company for the shopping plaza.  Plaintiffs, as personal representatives of the estates of two of the decedents, claimed wrongful death and argued that the property management company, along with the bar and the owner of the shopping plaza, owed the decedents a duty to protect them from the criminal acts of third parties.  Steve and Kellan argued that the decedents were not business invitees of the property management company, thus negating any special relationship between the parties, and that the criminal acts at issue in the case were entirely unforeseeable to the property management company.  The trial court agreed, dismissing all claims against Steve and Kellan’s client with prejudice.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal

Jeffrey P. Downer and Marc Rosenberg won a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) in Leapai v. Collection Bureau of America in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The Plaintiff sued a debt collector alleging that the debt collector failed to report a disputed debt to a credit reporting bureau to which the debt collector had previously provided information.  Jeff and Marc argued to the court that the debt collector needs only to report to the credit reporting agencies if the dispute is already known when the communication is made, and that when a debt collector learns of a dispute after reporting the debt to a credit bureau, the debt collector has no continuing duty to contact the reporting agency again and report the dispute.  The federal court agreed and dismissed the action.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

September 6, 2016

2016 Cycle the Wave

On September 18, 2016, attorney Donna M. Young and legal assistant Marie V. Sharpe take part in “2016 Cycle the WAVE Washington,” a 46-mile, women-only ride to raise funds to support The WAVE Foundation.  This organization seeks to raise awareness about and combat domestic and other violence against women in the Puget Sound area.  For more information, please visit the website http://support.cyclethewave.org/site/TR?fr_id=1120&pg=entry.

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

August 23, 2016

Strategies for Presenting your Best Case at Mediation

Michelle A. Corsi was a presenter at the WDTL Annual Convention in Whistler, B.C., in July 2016 on mediation, “Strategies for Presenting your Best Case at Mediation.”

Lee Smart attorneys have extensive experience in the Areas of Practice shown to the right. Click on one to learn more about our expertise and our attorneys in that practice.

March 25, 2016

Dismissal of Class Allegations

Pamela J. DeVet and Marc Rosenberg succeeded in obtaining an early, pre-discovery motion to dismiss class allegations in Bund v. Safeguard Properties. Plaintiff filed the matter in Island County Superior Court.  Plaintiff alleged individual damages of approximately $1,000, but claimed over $5 million in class damages. Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, the matter was removed to the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington. Pam and Marc convinced the court that adjudication of each putative class member’s claims for intentional trespass, conversion, and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act would reduce the trial on the merits to a series of individualized mini-trials. The court agreed that plaintiff did not meet the commonality, typicality, and superiority elements necessary to certify a class. The court dismissed class claims, and remanded the remaining individual claims to state court.

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Archives