Judge Yu Motion Calendar at SU Law

On Friday, September 28, Judge Mary Yu of the King County Superior Court will be hearing her motion calendar in the law school courtroom. At present, the hearings are scheduled to run from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., although the specific times may change. The law school community is invited to observe. This is a unique opportunity that is being provided by Judge Yu, her staff, and counsel, and we hope you will attend. Observers are asked to read Judge Yu's memorandum below, regarding courtroom etiquette and protocol prior to attending the hearings.

Motion Calendar

9 a.m.

Discussion with Judge Yu on writing effective briefs and making an
effective oral argument, with an opportunity for Judge Yu to answer
your questions.

10:30 a.m.

Luke v. Parrish; 07-2-06065-1 KNT
Summary Judgment

1:30 p.m.

Nordstrom v. Qwest Corp. 06-2-33535-0 KNT
Motion to Compel Arbitration (set by court)

2:30 p.m.

Mac v. Mac 06-3-04388-3 UFS
Review Hearing

Courtroom Etiquette/Protocol

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

On September 28, 2007, 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.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. If you are consuming liquids, please open the container (cans) outside of the courtroom.
  3. No hat may be worn inside the courtroom while we are in session.
  4. You are asked to wear appropriate attire (no shorts or cutoffs will be permitted).
  5. You must turn off the ringer/beeper on your cell phones and pagers before entering the courtroom.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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

Luke v. Parrish

Facts: Plaintiff Luke and defendant Parrish are neighbors. In June 2003, they signed a contract (the “Release Agreement”), which, according to plaintiff, required Parrish to pay to directly connect her property to City of Seattle sewage lines. In return, Luke agreed to release her rights to an easement she had on Parrish’s property. Parrish recorded the agreement, subdivided his lot into four lots, and sold three of the lots for the construction of three houses. One of the lots was sold to defendant Schug. As a part of the construction plan for the new houses, defendant Parrish indicated that Luke’s property would be connected to the sewage lines using a side sewer connection.

Plaintiff Luke has instituted this suit against Parrish and Schug for breach of contract, claiming that they are jointly and severally liable for the costs associated with providing a direct, rather than a side, connection to the city sewage lines. In addition, she is seeking a determination regarding the validity of her easement rights over Parrish’s lot.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Plaintiff seeks an order to enforce the contract to connect her property to the city’s sewage line using a direct connection. In addition, she contends that she retains a valid easement over a portion of the subdivided lot because the signed contract was not acknowledged. As a result, the agreement was not a valid deed relinquishing her property rights.

Defendant Schug’s Motion for Summary Judgment and CR 11 Sanctions: Defendant Schug contends that the agreement between Luke and Parrish is personal covenant and does not run with the land. As such, he is not obligated to pay for any costs associated with connecting the plaintiff’s property with the city’s sewage lines. Schug is also seeking CR 11 sanctions against plaintiff for pursuing allegedly meritless claims against him.

Nordstrom v. Qwest Corp.

Facts: Plaintiff contracted to receive residential and long distance phone service from defendant. Defendant contends plaintiff received copies of its “Service Agreement,” under which the parties agreed to submit any disputes to arbitration. In April and May of 2006, plaintiff received telephone bills in excess of $10,000 each month. The majority of the charges were related to satellite telephone calls plaintiff made to a cruise ship. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant asserting claims for breach of contract, for misrepresentation, and under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

Motion to Compel Arbitration: Defendant seeks an order to compel the parties to arbitrate their dispute, arguing that 1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates enforcement of plaintiff’s contractual agreement to arbitrate, 2) Qwest’s arbitration provision has been upheld by other courts, and 3) any state law challenge to Qwest’s arbitration provision in the service agreement is preempted by the federal Communications Act.

Mac v. Mac

This is a long-running dissolution case that is currently dealing with the payment of court imposed financial obligations of one of the parties. The review will deal with the progress of the ordered selling of a home to partially fulfill those financial obligations.

Sullivan Hall