Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,791 chars

bringing successful claims for failure to accommodate and whistleblower

retaliation. SPD argues the trial court’s award was excessive because it (A)

utilized unreasonable market rates, (B) erroneously applied a 1.2 multiplier, and

court’s award of attorney fees for abuse of discretion. Univ. of Wash. v. Gov’t

Emps. Ins. Co., 200 Wn. App. 455, 482, 404 P.3d 559 (2017). We reject SPD’s

first and second arguments. With respect to its third argument, we remand for

entry of proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.

15 SPD contends that by not also excluding the L&I report’s recommendations that SPD upgrade

its ventilation system and prohibit officers from completing reports in their vehicles, the trial court
“misled the jury to assume that a violation occurred.” SPD fails to sufficiently cite to the record to
show that it was prejudiced by the introduction of these recommendations without the
accompanying conclusion. SPD only cites to a single instance where Sgt. Hockett testified that
SPD did not post the L&I report until he contacted the L&I investigator. But SPD did not object to
this testimony, and Sgt. Hockett then testified that the report was posted “shortly [there]after.”

34
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

The starting point for all attorney fee determinations is the “lodestar”

method, which multiplies the hours reasonably expended in the litigation by the

reasonable hourly rate of compensation. Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.,

100 Wn.2d 581, 597, 675 P.2d 193 (1983). In determining the reasonableness of

an attorney’s hourly rate, the court considers factors such as “the [attorney’s] usual