HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, March 4, 2014

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Tuesday, March 4, 2014 

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new published opinions and Division Three filed no new opinions on Tuesday, March 4, 2014:

1. Richert v. Tacoma Power Util. 
No. 43825-9
(March 4, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 473 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 473 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: In this class action lawsuit for property damage caused by increased water flow, City of Tacoma v. Funk, No. 1651 (Mason County Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 1920)—a 1920 condemnation action in which the City of Tacoma condemned the plaintiffs' riparian and water rights so as to allow Tacoma to build two dams on the Skokomish River—did not preclude the plaintiffs' claims for flood and groundwater damage as a matter of law, because Tacoma failed to meet its burden of proving that the plaintiffs' claims have a concurrence of identity with Funk's final judgment.

2. Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. State
No. 44520-4 
(March 4, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 469 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 469 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The trial court erred in permanently enjoining the Washington Attorney General's Office (AGO) from releasing records requested under the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW, because the law firm failed to prove that any exemption under the Act protected information it submitted to the AGO seeking eligibility  to provide future securities litigation and related services to the Washington State Investment Board.

3. Jumamil v. Lakeside Casino, LLC 
No. 43620-5
(March 4, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 468 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 468 (Lexis Advance) 


Brief: A manager of a limited liability company (LLC) is liable for improper wage withholding only where he or she knowingly participated in the wrongful withholding. Because the LLC manager in this case failed to release the employee's withheld wages after learning about the casino's dealer support policy, he knowingly and willfully withheld her wages in violation of RCW 49.52.070. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reverses summary judgment as to the manager, holds him liable for willful wage withholding, and remands for an entry of costs and reasonable attorney fees against the manager under RCW 49.52.070. The Court of Appeals also reverses the summary dismissal of the manager and a supervisor from the employee's wage rebating claim and remands for further proceedings because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the manager and supervisor collected or received a rebate of the employee's wages.

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.