Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

Court of Appeals: Div. III – “Better Late Than Never” Does Not Apply to Default Order

 

Brooks v. University City, Inc.

Brooks worked  for ICT Group and slipped and fell on a patch oil in their parking lot.  The parking lot was leased from University City, Inc.  Brooks sued both ICT and UCI for negligence for failing to properly maintain the parking lot.

On May 3, 2006, Ms. Brooks served ICT with a summons and complaint. ICT did not respond. On July 26, 2006, Ms. Brooks moved for an order of default. On August 10, 2006, the court entered an order of default against ICT. And Ms. Brooks mailed a copy of the order to ICT. On April 17, 2007, Ms. Brooks settled with and dismissed her claims against University City. She then moved for a default judgment against ICT. On November 9, 2007, the trial court entered default judgment against ICT for $313,000 and costs. Around November 17, 2008, Ms. Brooks mailed a copy of the judgment to ICT.  Imagine the sinking feeling in someone’s stomach when they received a $313,000 judgment in the mail.  Whoops!

Bad News

On December 12, 2008, ICT appeared and moved to vacate the default order and judgment. It argued that the default order should be vacated because (1) it did not owe a duty to Ms. Brooks; and (2) it did not appear earlier only because its registered agent mistakenly forwarded the summons and default order to the wrong ICT employee. The trial court refused to vacate the default order because it determined that ICT's untimely appearance was inexcusable and prejudicial to Ms. Brooks.

The court also denied ICT's motion to vacate the default judgment. It reasoned that ICT was not entitled to notice of the default judgment because it was in default. And it concluded that ICT's failure to timely act on the summons and complaint was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from judgment.  Now you want to argue?!  Where were you a year ago?

On appeal, ICT argues that pursuant to CR 55(f)(1), Brooks was required to give them notice of entry of the default judgment because more than one year had passed since service of the summons.

CR 55(f)(1) does provide:

When more than 1 year has elapsed after service of summons with no appearance being made, the court shall not . . . enter a judgment until a notice of the time and place of the application for . . . judgment is served on the party in default, not less than 10 days prior to the entry.

Under the plain language of the rule, the default judgment must be vacated.  However, ICT also argued that the default order should also be set aside as there was excusable neglect: their registered agent just sat on the summons and complaint for a year and didn’t forward it to the legal department.  Yeah, not feeling the “excusable” part here.

Division III agreed with the trial court, that this was not excusable neglect and refused to invade the court’s sound discretion.  So the order of default was not reversed.  So Brooks has a default order, but no judgment.  I was trying to think this through as to the next procedural step.  I guess if you have a default order, but no judgment AND the opposing party is now present, you could just present for judgment and the only thing the opposing party could argue is the amount of damages.  Long way to get there, but I guess it’s better than fighting with some insurance company who is probably going to say your slip and fall in the oil in the parking lot is your own fault.  It’s like punching the face of the tied up bully.  I like!

Duct Tape

Subscribe in a reader