Recent Results

CLIENT AWARDED MORE THAN $21 MILLION

Our client was awarded in excess of $21 million by a AAA panel on breach of contract claims against a foreign defendant.  Al  Van Kampen was lead counsel, and part of an international team, representing the client.  The award included the recovery of damages, interest, attorney fees and arbitration expenses.

COURT DISMISSES $59 MILLION IN CLAIMS AGAINST FORTUNE 500 CLIENT

In a $59 million contract dispute, Del Miller, Al  Van Kampen and David Crowe obtained dismissal of all claims asserted against their Fortune 500 client.  The plaintiffs, a commercial developer and his eleven entities, asserted numerous causes of action including breach of contract, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices.  All claims were dismissed on summary judgment, and the ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.  The client’s General Counsel recently commented that this “lawsuit had the capacity to be a very large exposure for the Company and your firm’s handling of it was steadfast and intelligent.”  

BANKRUPTCY COURT MAKES IMPORTANT DECISION ON LOAN DISCHARGEABILITY 

Judge Karen Overstreet of the United States Bankruptcy Court in Seattle recently granted summary judgment in favor of our client in an adversary proceeding that set new rules on the dischargeability of student loans.  See In re Corbin, 506 B.R. 287 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2014).  The court found that when an accommodation co-signor for a student loan is forced to repay the loan the co-signor’s claim against the primary debtor is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).  David Crowe handled the case.

 

AIRCRAFT CASE RESULTS IN JUDGMENT FOR $6.076 MILLION The firm's client was granted a judgment totaling $6,076,025 from the Seattle federal district court in a breach of contract case concerning two aircraft owned by foreign companies. The judgment also dismissed a multimillion dollar counterclaim filed by one of the foreign companies. The court judgment was entered after 2½ years of litigation and arbitration proceedings. An arbitration panel previously ruled in favor of our client after a 6-day evidentiary hearing. Following judgment, our firm was able to collect the entire judgment, plus attorney fees and interest through execution proceedings. Al Van Kampen represented the firm's client. 

 

APPELLATE COURT REVERSES ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN TEXAS

In one of David Crowe's cases, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County trial court’s order vacating a judgment in favor of our Texas clients that was obtained in Texas and domesticated in Washington under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.   Brown v. Garrett, 175 Wash. App. 357 (2013).  The Washington defendants elected not to defend against the suit brought in Texas, later arguing to the Washington trial court that the Texas court did not have jurisdiction over them.  Although the trial court agreed with defendants and vacated the Texas judgment, the appellate court reversed and held that the Texas state court did have jurisdiction because defendants offered goods for sale in Texas.

 

CLIENT AWARDED JUDGMENT OF $1.18 MILLION ON SECURITIES CLAIM 
A King County Superior Court judge recently entered a judgment in favor of our client for $1,181,059 in a case concerning Rule 144 stock. The court found that the defendants had wrongly delayed the client from selling his restricted securities before the stock price declined. Al Van Kampen handled the case. 

$20 MILLION SETTLEMENT ON DESIGN PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS

Now-retired partner Robert Rohde recently achieved a $20 million settlement for client Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Limited (“PCMW”) in its lawsuit against Malibu Boats for infringement of its design patent and copyrights.  PCMW owns a design patent (Patent No. D555,070) and copyrights on an innovative marine windshield design.  The 5-piece design is distinctive for its frameless appearance tapered corner posts.  For years, Malibu used the design, over PCMW’s objection, on the majority of its product line.

​​​

There are no guaranteed outcomes in the law. Every case is different, and the results obtained will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a client's situation.