Judge Mary Yu to Hear Motions at Law School

On Monday, June 30, 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 6 to 8 p.m. The law school community is invited to observe. Information about the arguments, including the docket, summary of the cases, and briefs 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

6 p.m. Summary Judgment Motion
William T. Smith v. Personnel Board of King County
6:20 p.m. Revision Hearing (UFC Matter)
Wittenberger v. Wittenberger
Q&A Session with Judge Yu at the close of proceedings

Courtroom Etiquette/Protocol

Mary I. Yu
(206) 296-9275
E-mail: mary.yu@kingcounty.gov
Norm Maleng Regional Justice Center
401 4th Avenue North
Kent, Washington 98032-4429


To: Students Observing Hearings - Seattle University School of Law
From: Judge Mary Yu

On June 30, 2008 I will be presiding over a number of civil hearings in the courtroom located in your law school. These motions will be argued to the bench. You should note that this is the first time that our court has convened such a calendar in the evening. We ordinarily do not have evening calendars and only have done so in this case to provide evening students an opportunity to directly observe court proceedings.

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 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, unless the head covering is for religious reasons.
  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

William T. Smith v. Personnel Board of King County

Facts: Plaintiff is an employee within King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention (Department) and sought a King County Personnel Board (Board) review of a written reprimand issued by the Department. The Board issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Board did not receive a response by the deadline and dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff re-filed an appeal with the Board seeking review of the same written reprimand issued by the Department. The Department sent a letter to the Board asking that this second appeal likewise be dismissed. The Board did not receive a response to the Department’s motion to dismiss and reaffirmed its earlier dismissal. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion in Superior Court seeking to challenge the Board’s second rejection of his appeal.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendant King County Personnel Board files this motion for summary judgment dismissing the action based upon lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and on grounds that review is barred by res judicata.

(Full brief)

Wittenberger v. Wittenberger

This matter comes before the Superior Court on a Motion for Revision of a Court Commissioner's order. The Commissioner overseeing the family court matter partially revised a 1996 Order of Child Support involving support for the post-secondary education of the child. The father now seeks further review of the revision from the superior court as permitted under RCW 2.24.050.