Around The Firm
(Continued - Page 2)

Michelle A. Corsi won the appeal in the case of Nielsen Brothers v. Solid Trading v. Parker, a real-estate-malpractice case. Michelle previously had obtained dismissal of plaintiff's Consumer Protection Act claim before trial and went on to win a defense verdict at trial. … Michelle Corsi also won dismissal of a federal legal-malpractice case, McKay v. John Doe. Plaintiff McKay alleged that defendant attorneys committed fraud and violated the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Act (RICO) when representing plaintiff in an action concerning bankruptcy of his dairy farm. The court agreed with Michelle that McKay did not meet the strict requirements for pleading fraud under the federal rules. The court then dismissed McKay's RICO claims because he did not properly allege mail and wire fraud. The court gave McKay 45 days to file a legally sufficient complaint. McKay filed an amended complaint that failed to cure the pleading defects, so the court granted Michelle's second motion to dismiss, this time with prejudice.

Joel E. Wright and Alan M. Singer obtained summary judgment of dismissal in Clarin v. Hood, a real-estate-malpractice action. Their client represented the plaintiff property buyer, who sued for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. In response to Joel and Alan's summary judgment motion, plaintiff sought to add claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The court agreed that plaintiff had failed to raise any facts to support the previously pleaded claims and also refused to permit the belatedly raised claims. The court dismissed the action.

Duncan K. Fobes and Leslie L. Lewallen won summary judgment of dismissal in Billingsley v. Tukwila School District. Plaintiff sued for an injury she suffered while attempting to cross a steel cable at her son's soccer game. The District moved for summary judgment on the basis that it is immune from such suits under Washington's Recreational Use statute, RCW 4.24.210. Plaintiff argued that the supposedly excessive slack in the cable created a latent danger. But the court agreed with Duncan and Leslie that the condition, not the danger it poses, must be latent, granted the motion, and dismissed the action.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc. for clients and others. It is intended as general information only and is not to be construed as legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have any specific legal questions.

Editor: Jeffrey P. Downer	Eml: jpd@leesmart.com
Phone: 206.621.3482	Toll Free: 877.624.7990