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
1,778 charsprocedures for wronged individuals who are unable to afford or pursue individual lawsuits to obtain recovery. Id. (citing Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339, 100 S. Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980)). In addition to resolving individual class members’ claims, class actions can also “strongly deter future similar wrongful conduct, which benefits the community as a whole.” Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wn.2d 843, 852, 161 P.3d 1000 (2007), overruled on other grounds as stated in Coneff v. AT&T Corp., 673 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/23 Here, the trial court’s reduction of fees under RCW 59.18.280(2) based on the Cromars’ reasonable efforts to investigate and potentially vindicate their and other tenants’ rights through a class action defies the statute’s purpose to protect tenants’ interests and to bolster their position to hold landlords accountable for abuses. Finally, we observe that the trial court failed to fulfill its obligation to enter findings to support its substantial reduction of the Cromars’ requested fees. As referenced above, the court’s order provides no explanation as to what tasks are included in the awarded 16 hours as compared to the remaining 36.9 hours the court deemed unreasonable. In TAG Realty’s opposition to the Cromars’ attorney fee request, it specifically objected to Anderson’s billing of 2.9 hours for drafting emails related to a potential settlement agreement prior to the court’s summary judgment order. TAG Realty argued that such work should only account for 0.1 hours. This, again, is work directed to the very settlement the trial court complained the Cromars had failed to achieve. It was TAG