Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Full Text
1,765 charsThe Court finds that the number of hours incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel were not reasonable. This case was filed as a putative class action. That threat drastically limited the possibility of reaching a negotiated resolution. Once the class claims were abandoned, … [TAG Realty] took little time conceding to entry of judgment. But by then the plaintiffs had incurred significant fees, again limiting the possibility of reaching a negotiated resolution. Had the lawsuit instead been brought simply to recover the plaintiffs’ damages (the “successful result,” … [Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632 (1998)]), a negotiated resolution may have been reached early, and, if not, the plaintiffs’ lawyers could have immediately sought summary judgment on what was a very straightforward claim. Instead, the plaintiffs approached the case as a class action, including propounding and reviewing discovery relevant to proving class claims. … That work—prosecuting the matter as a putative class action—was devoted to “unsuccessful claims, duplicated or wasted effort, or otherwise unproductive time” and must be excluded. … [See Chuong Van Pham v. City of Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 527, 538, 151 P.3d 976 (2007)]. Even work devoted to proving the plaintiffs’ individual claim was “unproductive” in that, had the class claims not been pursued, the plaintiffs could have reached a resolution (whether negotiated or by court order) with far fewer hours expended. The Court finds that, at most, sixteen (16) hours were reasonably expended (including fees on fees) on prosecution of this matter. The court concluded that “[g]iven that approximately half of the work was accomplished by each lawyer,” the lodestar should be computed as the total of eight hours of work by