Notable Cases

Walker v. Seattle Housing Authority, 2005 WL 1126926, 30 NDLR 116, W.D. Wash., 2005 (The Honorable James Robart). Olympic Law Group represented an employee in her age, race and disability discrimination claims as well as her retaliation claims under Washington state and federal laws. The issue was tried in federal court before a jury. The jury was deadlocked. After the mistrial, the parties settled and the Plaintiff received an undisclosed sum.

F. Fei, LLC v. Roy Street Holdings. Inc. et. Al, 126 Wn. App. 1061, 2005 WL 894897, 2005. Olympic Law Group represented a developer who was sued by a neighboring uphill landowner for damage allegedly caused by the construction activities on the developer's land and the developer's alleged failure to provide lateral support. After a 3-day bench trial before the honorable Mary Yu in King County, Washington Superior Court, the developer received a defense judgment and attorney fees. The neighboring landowner appealed. The judgment was affirmed, except for the attorney fees, which was reversed.

In re Marriage of Cordero, Panganiban, 126 Wn. App. 1047, 2005 WL 894897, 2005. Olympic Law Group represented a former husband who sought to vacate a decree declaring his marriage invalid due to fraud. The matter was heard in King County Superior Court. A court commissioner refused to vacate the decree. A judge, however, vacated the decree. The matter was appealed and the appellate court reversed and the decree was reinstated.

In re Marriage of Olpin, King County Superior Court Case No. 03-3-11445-0 SEA. This was a case of first impression in Washington that characterized a portion of stock options as being awarded for past services. It also involved parenting issues involving an infant/toddler (ages 0-3). The wife worked for Immunex and participated in the Immunex Rewards program. Based on the evidence the trial court concluded 29% of the options she earned were for past services. The wife adequately traced these proceeds through her joint brokerage account and was awarded, as her separate property, the portion attributable to her work prior to her marriage. She was also successful in having the trial court adopt her proposed parenting plan that adopted the King County Residential Guidelines.

Chai v. Kong, 122 Wn. App. 247, 93 P.3d 936 (2004). Olympic Law Group represented a former husband in an action where his former wife tried to vacate an order that dissolved their marriage by converting their legal into a divorce. The former wife alleged the order was void for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed her action to vacate the order. The former wife appealed. The appellate court agreed with the former husband that the order was not void, but found there were some issues regarding the method the former husband utilized to notify the former wife about the conversion. The matter was remanded for a trial on the remaining issues. The order was vacated for 2 months and then the conversion was reinstated. The conversion is expected to be reinstated to the original date.

Archer v. Boeing, Case No. C02-2002L, W.D. Wash. 2003. Olympic Law Group represented an employee against her employer for the employer's intentional interference with the employee's rights under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). After a 5-day bench trial in federal court before the Honorable Robert Lasnik, a Memorandum Decision and Judgment were entered in the employee's favor finding the employer intentionally interfered with the employees FMLA rights. The employee was awarded $276,494.56 in FMLA damages, $10,000 in emotional distress damages, attorney fees and costs.

Elcon Corp. v. City of Tacoma, 110 Wn. App. 1054, 2002 WL 368603, 2002. Olympic Law Group represented a black underground electrical contractor on appeal after it lost summary judgment before the Honorable Terry Sebring in Pierce County Superior Court. The contractor claimed the city discriminated against the contractor based on the owner's race. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment motion and remanded the case back to the trial court for trial. The matter was tried before a jury for 5 weeks before a settlement could be reached. The settlement amount is confidential. The impetus driving the settlement was the holding by the trial judge that the city could be vicariously responsible under Washington's Law Against Discrimination for the discriminatory acts of its employees under the respondeat superior doctrine.

Murphy Electronics, Inc. v. K.R. Anderson Co., Inc., 102 Wn. App. 1029, 2000 WL 1279302, 2000. Olympic Law Group defended a manufacturer's representative who was accused of violating Washington's Unfair Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"). The manufacturer sold solder and solder-related products to a wholesaler who, in turn, re-sold the products to industrial customers. The manufacturer terminated its relationship with the wholesaler. The wholesaler accused the manufacturer's representative of stealing the wholesaler's customer list. The Honorable Steven Scoff, King County Superior Court Judge, dismissed the wholesaler's claim on summary judgment. The wholesaler appealed. The appellate court affirmed.

Sims v. KAM Specialties, 692 So 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Olympic Law Group defended an employer against an employee's claim the employer breached an employment agreement it had with the employer. The employee was awarded $18,000 after a 5-day jury trial. The trial court did not award the employee his fees. The employee appealed. The appellate court affirmed.

National Enterprises, Inc. v. Martin, 679 So 2d 331(Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Olympic Law Group defended a homeowner against a claimed deficiency judgment brought by a successor to a mortgagee. The homeowner won at trial because the mortgagee failed to establish the assignment of the debt. It produced the information after trial, but the trial court did not allow a rehearing. The appellate court affirmed the decision to dismiss the case initially, but overruled the trial court's decision to not allow a rehearing based on the debt assignment information.

Smith v. Ackerman, 660 So 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Olympic Law Group represented an investor who invested in a promissory note allegedly based an investment broker's negligent advice. The trial court refused to stay the trial and require the matter be arbitrated. The investor confessed error on appeal and the matter was arbitrated.

Best Form, Inc. v. Richards Products, Inc., 631 So 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Olympic Law Group represented a vitamin supplement supplier who sued a customer for products supplied, but not paid for. The supplier obtained a default judgment of over $800,000 in Minnesota. The supplier then sought to register and enforce the judgment in Florida and execute on the customer's assets. The customer resisted and claimed Minnesota did not have personal jurisdiction to enter the default judgment. The Florida trial court agreed and refused to register or enforce the Minnesota judgment. The supplier appealed. The appellate court reversed and required the Minnesota judgment be given full force and effect.

Finkelstein v. Finkelstein, 603 So 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A former husband sued to modify an agreed final judgment so it would require the former wife to pay child support despite the fact the agreed final judgment stated the former wife would never have to pay child support in the future. The agreement to waive child support in the future was void under Florida law. The former wife moved to set aside the entire property settlement based on the waiver being unenforceable. She claimed that if the consideration for the agreement was unenforceable, the entire agreement should be set aside. She, therefore, filed a lis pendens on the parties' former marital home that was awarded to the former husband by agreement. The former husband moved to discharge the lis pendens. The trial court discharged the lis pendens. The former wife appealed. The appellate court reversed and the lis pendens was reinstated.

Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Westbrook Atkinson Realtors, 564 So 2d 570 (1990). Olympic Law Group represented a beneficiary under a letter of credit who sued a bank for wrongfully refusing the letter of credit. The beneficiary won at trial. The bank appealed. The judgment was reversed.