Judge Yu Motion Calendar at SU Law

On Friday, September 16, Judge Mary Yu of the King County Superior Court will be holding her motion calendar in the law school courtroom. At present, arguments are scheduled for 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m., although the specific times may change. The law school community is invited to observe. Information about the arguments, including the docket and summary of the cases will be posted here as available. This is a unique opportunity that is being provided by Judge Yu, her staff, and counsel, and we hope you will attend. Students are asked to read Judge Yu's memorandum below, regarding courtroom etiquette and protocol prior to attending the hearings.

Motion Calendar

9 a.m. Aegis Assisted Living v. City of Shoreline - Cause No. 03-2-40745-3 SEA
Motion for Summary Judgment
9:45 a.m. IFC v. Schiffrin - Cause No. 04-2-04700-5 SEA
Motion for Summary Judgment
10:30 a.m. Johnson v. State of Washington, et al. - Cause No. 05-2-14368-1 SEA
Motion for Summary Judgment
11:15 a.m. Swanson v. Issaquah Care Center, LLC, Cause No. 03-2-20442-1 SEA
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
1 p.m. Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co. - Cause No. 04-2-15763-3 SEA
Motion for Summary Judgment
2:30 p.m. MacGibbon v. MacGibbon - Cause No. 05-2-01951-4 SEA
Administrative Law Review

Courtroom Etiquette/Protocol

To: Students Observing Summary Judgment Hearings
From: Judge Mary Yu

On September 16, 2005 I will be presiding over a number of civil hearings in the Fred H. Dore Courtroom located in your law school. The calendar includes several motions for summary judgment. These motions will be argued to the bench.

  1. It is important for you to know that the cases are not mock cases and this is not moot court. The hearings involve “real” controversies between parties filed as a cause of action in the State of Washington, County of King. Thus, you are advised that once the hearings begin, your law school courtroom becomes an official courtroom of the State of Washington subject to my control. As the presiding judge of the calendar, I wish to you advise you in advance that the following rules of etiquette shall apply to the courtroom.
  2. No food may be consumed in the courtroom while we are in session. Because chewing gum and unwrapping candy is noisy and a distraction, no gum chewing or consumption of candy shall be allowed.
  3. If you are consuming liquids, please open the container (cans) outside of the courtroom.
  4. No hat may be worn inside the courtroom while we are in session.
  5. You are asked to wear appropriate attire (no shorts or cutoffs will be permitted).
  6. You must turn off the ringer/beeper on your cell phones and pagers before entering the courtroom.
  7. If you wish to take notes on a laptop computer, you must turn off the sound system or speaker. If your keyboard becomes a distraction to the court or counsel, you may be asked to turn your computer off.
  8. You are not permitted to ask me any questions about the case until I have decided that matter. If appropriate, I will make myself available afterwards so that you can ask me questions about the arguments and/or decision.
  9. You may approach counsel while in recess and if they wish to talk with you about the case you may proceed to have the discussion provided it is not in my presence.

Please make an extra effort to come and go as quietly as you can so that no one is distracted from counsels’ presentation.

Lastly, I personally thank each one of you for your interest in pre-trial practice and hope that you will benefit in some way from the opportunity to observe your state court in action.

Motion Summaries

Aegis Assisted Living v. City of Shoreline

Facts: Plaintiff is developing a large assisted care and Alzheimer’s facility in Shoreline. The proposed development site is made up of two parcels separated by a wetland called “Peverly Pond.” The outer banks of this wetland include “sensitive areas” that allow for dense vegetation and offer a habitat for wildlife – land which neighboring property owners want to protect. After numerous attempts to gain permission for the development by way of variances and the like, the plaintiff brought this suit against the city, demanding more than $3 million in damages, on grounds that the city made, in part, negligent misrepresentations to the plaintiff during the permit process, causing it to incur substantial costs.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendant City of Shoreline seeks an order of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of negligent misrepresentation, arguing: (1) that the plaintiff cannot prove any misrepresentation; (2) that the public duty doctrine bars the suit; and (3) that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

IFC v. Schiffrin et al.

Facts: The Independent Fisherman’s Cooperative (IFC) has sued the defendants for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff claims that the defendants improperly asserted control over the company in August 1997, which resulted in the institution of a suit on behalf of IFC against its initial president and eventually led to it declaring bankruptcy in April 1999.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendants argue that the plaintiff’s claims are rooted in the time period 1997 through 1999, and thus the 3-year statute of limitations period has expired. Further, they argue that, even though IFC filed for bankruptcy in April 1999, the trustee could have asserted the claim.

Johnson v. State of Washington

Facts: The pro se plaintiff, a former employee of Washington State University, claims that she was denied tenure on the basis of her race. The plaintiff originally brought suit in federal court, but her federal claims were dismissed with prejudice on grounds that she had not complied with the statute of limitations for filing her Title VII action, and that her § 1983 claim was duplicative of the Title VII claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The plaintiff then filed the instant case in state court, claiming in part that the defendant violated “Washington laws against Discrimination,” the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Washington Constitution.

Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendant requests that the plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel (that is, on the ground that they were already disposed of in federal court). Furthermore, the defendant requests that the plaintiff’s claim for violation of rights secured by the Washington Constitution be dismissed because there is no such recognized claim in Washington and, in the alternative, the statute of limitations has passed.

Swanson v. Issaquah Care Center, LLC

Neither a summary nor briefs are posted on this matter.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co.

Facts: Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. He alleges that, shortly thereafter, he received a letter from Omni Insurance Company demanding $ 415 in connection with the accident, a sum that he paid. He then began receiving notices from a collection agency demanding payment of $ 6,412 as past “due.” Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, alleging that defendants insurance company and collection agency are in violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act for demanding and extracting money when no debt has been established.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Plaintiff requests that summary judgment be granted on the claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act because defendants’ actions constitute: (1) an unfair and deceptive act (2) occurring in trade or commerce (3) that affects the public interest and (4) which caused injury and damages to plaintiff.

MacGibbon v. MacGibbon

Brief is not posted on this matter.

Facts: Petitioner and respondent former wife were divorced in 2000, and petitioner was ordered to pay child support and spousal maintenance, both payable to the Washington State Support Registry. On November 22, 2004, an Administrative Law Judge found that petitioner owed $ 55,948 in past due maintenance for the year 2001.

Petitioner for Review of Order of Administrative Law Judge: The pro se petitioner argues that the order of the Administrative Law Judge should be set aside for numerous reasons, including: (1) the judge erroneously included in petitioner’s post-divorce income one-half the proceeds of an IRA account awarded him in the divorce decree; (2) the judge refused to order testimony from the former wife’s accountant and attorney; (3) the judge refused to have the proceedings recorded by a court reporter; and (4) the judge refused petitioner’s objections to a number of exhibits.

Sullivan Hall, first floor corridor