Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,728 chars
36
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