Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,728 chars36 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I B After calculating the lodestar, the court may adjust it upward based on the contingent nature of success and the quality of work performed. Bowers, 100 Wn.2d at 598. Washington courts recognize that an upward multiplier is an important tool in encouraging litigation in contingency cases. Wash. State Commc’n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 173 Wn. App. 174, 221, 293 P.3d 413 (2013). This is especially true in the context of WLAD, which “places a premium on encouraging private enforcement.” Id. (quoting Chuong Van Pham v. City of Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 529, 542, 151 P.3d 976 (2007)). In this case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions support a 1.2 multiplier. Sgt. Hockett’s counsel represented him on a contingency fee basis, which posed a risk that they would not be paid for their work. The trial court observed Sgt. Hockett’s counsel throughout the litigation and commended them for their “high quality” work that “led to extraordinary results in a high-risk, complex case with contested facts and an uncertain outcome.” The trial court also noted that to obtain relief, Sgt. Hockett had to endure years of discovery and a “complex trial against an excellent opponent with great resources.” Lastly, the court noted that this case was brought under “remedial statutes and ordinances instilled with public interest.” See RCW 49.60.010; SMC 4.20.800. These findings are supported by the record and amply support the trial court’s multiplier. C SPD argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees for the work performed by Sgt. Hockett’s legal assistant, Tony Dondero, and trial