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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,737 chars

work or impeded settlement. The trial court’s conclusion that it did is based on nothing

in the record. Nor does anything in the trial court’s order reflect scrutiny of the submitted

time records to attempt to support its hypothesis. In its lodestar determination of

reasonably expended attorney hours, a trial court must exercise its discretion to

discount hours spent on unsuccessful theories or claims, wasteful or duplicated effort,

or unproductive time. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434; Bowers, 100 Wn.2d at 597. However,

even if there had been support for the trial court’s hypothesis, we have previously held

that an attorney fee award should not be reduced for unreasonableness in settlement.

Ewing v. Glogowski, 198 Wn. App. 515, 522-23, 394 P.3d 418 (2017). Evidence of

conduct or statements made in negotiations is not admissible to prove the validity of the

claim or its amount. ER 408. “Evidence of settlement negotiations of an underlying claim

are not admissible as to proving attorney fees for that claim.” Id. at 522 (citing

Humphrey Indus., Ltd. v. Clay St. Assocs., LLC, 170 Wn.2d 495, 508, 242 P.3d 846

(2010)).

Moreover, the trial court’s analysis that the Cromars should have resolved the

10
Plaintiffs also argue that it is not proper for the trial court to consider the amount in
controversy in attorney fee determinations under the RLTA. Because the court did not base its
ruling on the amount in controversy, we need not address this argument.
14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/15

case earlier by achieving a settlement is particularly unfair where the only work that

TAG Realty claimed was wasteful was time that the Cromars’ counsel spent on