King County Superior Court Motion Calendar with Judge Mary I. Yu


Seattle University School of Law
Fred H. Dore Courtroom
Friday, October 25, 2013
9:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.


This docket is subject to change if matters are continued or settled.  The motion briefs are posted below.  Please make sure that you read Judge Yu's memo regarding courtroom etiquette and protocol prior to attending this hearing.  

9:30 a.m. - RALJ: State of Washington v. Tarik Karam-Oko El, Case No. 12-1-06199-4 SEA 

10:00 a.m. - Cross Motions for Summary Judgment: Name Intelligence Inc. v. Nikita Kinnaman, Case No. 12-2-32019-5 SEA

11:00 a.m. - Third-Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: Farmers Insurance Company, et al v. Damian Greene, et al, Case No. 11-2-43753-1 SEA  

1:00 p.m. - Motion to Show Cause: Mark Phillips v. Chad Rudkin, et al, Case No. 13-2-07233-5 SEA


9:30am: RALJ: State of Washington v. Tarik Karam-Oko El, Case No. 12-1-06199-4 SEA

Facts:  Appellant was arrested for a DUI and refused a breath test.  A mistrial was declared following the first trial when the arresting officer testified that the appellant was intoxicated based not on a breath test, but on the HGN test result that proved only a mere consumption of alcohol.  Appellant was found guilty after a second trial. 

Appeal:  Appellant appeals his conviction on the following grounds: 1. The State should not have been able to introduce appellant's refusal to submit to the breath test to prove his consciousness of guilt; 2. The State should not have been allowed to elicit testimony that the appellant's HGN test result showed more than mere consumption of alcohol.

Brief of Appellant 

Brief of Respondent 

10:00am: Cross Motions for Summary Judgment: Name Intelligence Inc. v. Nikita Kinnaman, Case No. 12-2-32019-5 SEA

Facts:  In October 2011, Name Intelligence loaned Student Entrepreneurs, Inc. $100,000 with a loan due date of September 1, 2012.  Ms. Kinnaman personally guaranteed for Jessica Bishop, the owner of Student Entrepreneurs, Inc.  Student Entrepreneurs failed to pay the loan, which then went into default.  Plaintiff is suing Ms. Kinnaman as the guarantor of the loan.  Several motions for summary judgment have been filed since the beginning of the case, all of which have been denied.

Motion:  The Court will hear cross motions for summary judgment.  The plaintiff argues that the defendant has not provided any evidence to support her defense to invalidate the contract and therefore, the guaranty must be enforced.  The defendant argues that the guaranty cannot be enforced because the underlying agreement is unconscionable.  

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 

11:00am: Third-Party Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: Farmers Insurance Company, et al v. Damian Greene, et al, Case No. 11-2-43753-1 SEA

Facts: Mr. Greene was an insurance agent for Farmers for fourteen years, and in May 2011, he terminated his contract with Farmers and began working as an agent for a Farmers' competitor.  Upon termination, Mr. Greene agreed to leave all confidential policyholder information with Farmers and agreed not to use or divulge such information after leaving Farmers.  Farmers Insurance claims that Mr. Greene and the other defendants, including Mr. Greene's new employer and several agents of that employer, used this information, which caused hundreds of policyholders to cancel their Farmers insurance policies and purchase policies from Farmers' competitors (the defendants).  Mr. Greene joined a number of agents and Farmers Group, Inc. as third-party defendants in this matter.  

Motion:  The third-party defendants move to dismiss Mr. Greene's counterclaims pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) because they argue that Mr. Greene's Amended Answer alleges no facts to support any claim for relief against them. 

Third-Party Defendant Farmers Group's Motion to Dismiss

Third-Party Defendants Robert Archer and Archer Agency's Joinder of Motion to Dismiss

Third-Party Defendants Robert Archer and Archer Agency's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

1:00pm: Motion to Show Cause: Mark Phillips v. Chad Rudkin, et al, Case No. 13-2-07233-5 SEA

Facts:  Plaintiff Mark Phillips is suing defendants for failing to comply with their contractual and legal obligations in the management of plaintiff's intellectual property, personal property, and other assets.  Defendants, who were friends of plaintiff, were chosen to safeguard plaintiff's assets and property while plaintiff dealt with a federal criminal prosecution.  While plaintiff was incarcerated, defendants assumed all shares of the corporation and allegedly breached their fiduciary duties when they mischaracterized funds, received disbursements without paying for their shares, and failed to protect the main assets of the company (plaintiff's IP) by taking loans out on the IP and failing to pay patent maintenance fees. 

Motion:  The plaintiff has moved for an order to show cause regarding the appointment of a receiver to select a new Board of Directors and to manage the company's affairs until a properly constituted board is in place and new management is hired.  He is also asking for injunctive relief to enjoin defendants from disposing of company assets.

Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause

Please do not miss class for this event.
Decorum Memo Regarding Courtroom Etiquette & Protocol

School of Law Annex