Archive

King Country Superior Court Motion Calendar with Judge Patrick Oishi

Seattle University School of Law
Fred H. Dore Courtroom
Thursday, September 6, 2012
5:00 p.m.-7:00 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 Oishi's memo regarding courtroom etiquette and protocol prior to attending this hearing.  

5:00 p.m. - Motion to Exclude Defendant's Biomechanical Expert Witness at Trial: Arnold v. Demirel, Case No. 10-2-45161-7 KNT 5:30 p.m. - Motion for Summary Judgment: Stauch v. Riddle, Case No. 11-2-13212-9 KNT 


 

5:00pm: Motion to Exclude Defendant's Biomechanical Expert Witness at Trial: Arnold v. Demirel, Case No. 10-2-45161-7 KNT  

Facts:  In November 2009, Plaintiff William Arnold and Defendant Sinan Demirel were involved in a vehicle collision.  In response to Defendant's affirmative defenses, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.  Defendant responded with a declaration and report from an expert witness, a biomechanical engineer, who opined that Mr. Arnold could not have sustained injuries as a result of the incident.  The Court determined that Mr. Arnold did in fact sustain injuries and entered a partial summary judgment in his favor.  Defendant intends to call the engineer to testify at trial.    Motion:  Plaintiff moves to exclude the testimony of Defendant's biomechanical engineering witness at trial on the grounds that the witness's testimony is based on unreliable data, that he lacks the medical expertise to provide an opinion about injury causation, and that his testimony is irrelevant.     Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Defendant's Biomechanical Expert Witness at TrialDefendant's Response to Motion to Exclude Defendant's Biomechanical Expert Witness at Trial 


 

5:30pm: Motion for Summary Judgment: Stauch v. Riddle, Case No. 11-2-13212-9 KNT  

Facts:  In April 2008, Naomi Riddle was involved in a motor vehicle-bicycle incident with John Stauch.  Mr. Stauch, the Plaintiff in this matter, filed his complaint with the King County Superior Court in April 2011, naming Naomi Riddle as the only Defendant.  In May 2011, service of the summons and complaint was attempted on Defendant Riddle at her home and was given to Ehriz Johnson.    Motion:  Defendant brings this Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to serve her with a copy of the summons and complaint in the manner and form required by law.  Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment


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

King County Superior Court Motion Calendar with Judge Steven González 

Seattle University School of Law
Fred H. Dore Courtroom
Thursday, October 27, 2011
5:00 p.m.-7:30 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 González's memo regarding courtroom etiquette and protocol prior to attending this hearing.  You may enter and leave the courtroom during the hearings, so long as you do so quietly.

5:00 p.m. - Motion for Summary Judgment: Lisa Smith v. Heartland Automotive Services, et. al., Cause No. 10-2-29329-9 SEA
5:30 p.m. - Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Hoya Corporation v. University of Washington; Cause No. 11-2-34555-6 SEA 

5:00pm  Motion for Summary Judgment: Lisa Smith v. Heartland Automotive Services, et. al., Cause No. 10-2-29329-9 SEA

Facts: Plaintiff fell and broke her wrist while walking to the waiting room at Jiffy Lube ("Defendant").    

Motion: The motion before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Summary Judgment

5:30pm: Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Hoya Corporation v. University of Washington; Cause No. 11-2-34555-6 SEA

Facts: In 2008, Pentax and UW entered into an Exclusive License Agreement, providing that Pentax would have sole rights to incorporate the technology into a commercial product. UW has tried to terminate the Exclusive License on the grounds that Pentax hasn't met performance targets set out in the agreement, and has indicated intentions to enter SFE license negotiations with Pentax's competitors. Pentax is suing for breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, and seeks a declaration that it has not defaulted and that the termination is null and void.

Motion: The motion before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop UW from acting outside the Exclusive License agreement. There is also a pending motion filed by Plaintiff to seal certain exhibits to the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, specifically the License Agreement and Pentax's Commercialization Report, on the grounds that compelling business reasons related to trade secrets outweigh the public interest in having the documents available. 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Prelimary Injunction


King County Superior Court Motion Calendar with Judge Mary Yu

Seattle University School of Law
Fred H. Dore Courtroom
Monday, October 11, 2010
5:30 p.m.-7:30 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. You may enter and leave the courtroom during the hearings, so long as you do so quietly.

5:30 p.m. - RALJ: Meik v. Weyn; Cause No: 10-2-13616-9 SEA
6:00 p.m. - RALJ: City of Seattle v. Donovo; Cause No. 10-1-01205-9 SEA
6:30 p.m. - Trustee's Motion to Enjoin Foreclosure Sale: Bank of America v. Moody National; Cause No: 10-2-20502-1 SEA


5:30pm: RALJ- Meik v. Weyn, cause no. 10-2-13616-9 SEA

Facts: Petitioner, Karina Meik, and her two children were granted a five-year anti-harrasment order against respondent, Dandy Weyn. The respondent is now appealing that order.

Appeal: The petitioner appeals the five-year anti-harassment order, because there are no clear findings as to what acts he has committed that constituted unlawful harassment per the RCW.

RALJ-Meik v. Weyn Appellant Brief
RALJ-Meik v. Weyn Respondent Brief


6:00pm: RALJ - City of Seattle v. Donovo, cause no. 10-1-01205-9 SEA

NO BRIEFS FILED.


6:30pm: Trustee's Motion to Enjoin Foreclosure Sale - Bank of America v. Moody National, cause no. 10-2-20502-1 SEA

Facts: After the court denied the defendants' initial motion to enjoin the trustee sale, the defendants deposited the amount the plaintiff's counsel stated was needed to "cure" the default into their law firm's trust account. However, Plaintiffs do not stipulate to a continuance of the trustee's sale for a number of reasons.

Motion: Defendants move the court for an order to enjoin the pending trustee sale.

Motion to Enjoin
Response to Motion to Enjoin


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

The law school's Scholars for Justice. From left, Amy Pritchard '09, Celeste Miller '10, Kevin DeLiban '10, Persis Yu '09