Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Full Text
1,730 charsRealty that argued that it was unreasonable and a waste of time for the Cromars to spend more than six minutes engaging in settlement communication. TAG Realty cited a copy of Cromars’ counsels’ time sheet, wherein it highlighted 4.1 hours reported by Anderson, which seems to include the challenged 2.9 hours, and 0.8 hours reported by Santiago that included time spent on settlement discussions. 13 The trial court simply disregarded the record before it in blaming the Cromars for the lack of settlement. 13 The highlighted time records were attached to TAG Realty’s counsel’s supporting declaration, which stated that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs and TAG Realty counsel exchanged several emails and phone calls related to a potential settlement agreement in advance of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Copies of the emails regarding settlement can be provided to the Court upon request.” 23 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/24 Even assuming the trial court agreed with TAG Realty’s objections and thus subtracted 4 hours of Anderson’s work and 0.8 hours of Santiago’s work, the lodestar would consist of 11.6 hours for Anderson and 36.5 hours for Santiago. The lodestar calculation at the court-reduced hourly rate would be as follows: (11.6 hours x $500) + (36.5 hours x $450) = $22,225 But the trial court awarded a total final fee amount of $7,200, which is more than a 32 percent reduction from the amount that would be awarded at the reduced hourly rate with the reduction in hours proposed by TAG Realty. This ignores any analysis of the time Cromars’ counsels actually incurred. Besides the eminently reasonable 8.1 hours