Caitlin Cromar, Et Ano, V. Tag Realty, Llc. (2026)

Citation: Caitlin Cromar, Et Ano, V. Tag Realty, Llc. (2026)
Parent Document: Caitlin Cromar, Et Ano, V. Tag Realty, Llc. (2026)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2026-01-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10773374/caitlin-cromar-et-ano-v-tag-re... ↗

Full Text

952 chars

14
           The only specific reference to the record the trial court made in its order is to plaintiffs’
summary judgment motion, where plaintiffs stated that they “initially brought this case as a
putative class action so that they could conduct discovery and, hopefully, return unlawfully-
retained deposits to other former tenants. While – as expected – TAG [Realty] does
systematically invoke its illegal deposit forfeiture provisions against other tenants, discovery
responses suggest that TAG [Realty]’s business scale is likely not large enough to meet the
numerosity requirements of CR 23.”
        15
           For example, the trial court may prepare a table “that lists, for each attorney, the hours
reasonably performed for particular tasks and the rate charged, which may vary with the type of
work.” Berryman, 177 Wn. App. at 664 (citing Bowers, 100 Wn.2d at 597-98).
                                                  25
87780-1-I/26

Other Sections in This Document (502)

Full Text