IN THE DISTRIC COURT FOR KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
WEST DIVISION, SEATTLE COURTHOUSE
VAN KAMPEN & CROWE PLLC, a
Washington professional limited liability NO. 21- civ- 21833 KCX
Company, DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JASON STEVENS and WENDY
STEVENS, husband and wife, and their
marital community,
Defendants.
FACTS
1. On the 3 rd day of February, 2017, the Washington State Department of health sent a
Statement of Charges alleging unprofessional conduct against Mr. Stevens under Case
No. M2016-92. In early February of 2017, Defendants received from the State a “Notice
of Your Legal Rights” document and the “Answer to Statement of Charges and Request
for Settlement & hearing” form. On or about March 8, 2017, Defendants executed a letter
agreement with the Plaintiff so that it may represent Mr. Stevens in this administrative
proceeding.
2. At the time of retaining the Plaintiff, the Defendants specifically informed and instructed
the Plaintiff of at least the following:
(a) That Mr. Steven sought to resolve this matter through formal settlement
conference as described on page 2 of the Notice of Your Legal Rights
documents as well as an Answer to Statement of Charges and Request for
Settlement & Hearing form.
(b) That Defendants total allocated fee budget for Plaintiff’s handling of this
administrative matter was $3,900.00; and
(c) That the court-ordered deadline for Plaintiff to file the Answer to Statement of
Charges and Request for Settlement & Hearing form was April 24, 2017.
3. On even dates between May 2, 2017 and May 4, 2017, the Defendants learned that the
Plaintiff billed Defendants approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees for services that were
purportedly rendered as of March 31, 2017. During the same time frame, the Defendants
disputed the reasonableness of such fees since it amounted to exhausting 90% of the
Defendants allocated fee budget within less than a month of hiring Plaintiff. Defendants
also inquired about whether the Plaintiff had scheduled a formal settlement conference.
The Plaintiff indicated that it had not.
4. The Defendants read out a court order indicating that the Plaintiff did not file a timely
answer and did not submit the request for formal settlement in due time.
5. The Defendants the received a PayPal invoice from the Plaintiff for an outstanding
balance which was $18, 836.60 allegedly for services rendered through May 31, 2017.
6. The Defendants settled the arrears but when they refused to renegotiate terms, the
Plaintiff breached the agreement. This deprived Mr. Stevens of substantial legal rights
thus the possibility of having his administrative matter resolved through a formal
settlement proceeding.
7. Mr. Stevens then hired another counsel. When representing Mr. Stevens, the Plaintiff
disclosed confidential agreement between Mr. Stevens and the Washington State without
his consent.
8. Further, the Plaintiff tried to renegotiate the June 19, 2017 oral agreement and engaged in
unethical billing practices to delay the Defendants’ discovery of the unauthorized billings
and confuse them.
9. The Plaintiff also unethically and improperly sought to collect a debt from the
Defendants through misrepresentation.
10. As a result of the Plaintiff’s wrongful conduct. The Defendants have suffered losses and
will continue doing so as a result of unnecessary litigation expenses, professional fees,
lost wages, and mental anguish
A. Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of its Breach of Contract Claim
According to the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions- Civil 6A Wash. Prac., ash. Pattern
Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 300.02 (7 TH ed), the Plaintiff has the burden of proving that certain
propositions on the breach of contract claim. Such include that the defendants entered into a
contract with the Plaintiff, what the material terms of the contract included, that the Defendants
breached the contract in one of the ways claimed by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff was not in
material breach of its own obligations under the contract, that any condition precedent had
occurred, and that the Plaintiff was damaged as a result of the Defendants breach. WP1 302.02
also requires that the Plaintiff proves that they have maintained their end of the bargain in the
contract. Moreover, WP1 302.03 defines “material breach as a breach serious enough to justify
the abandonment of the contract. Moreover, James v Blazer, 39 Wn. 2d 277 defines material
breach to mean the non-performance of a promise by one party to a bilateral contract that is so
material as to justify a refusal of the other party to perform contractual duty. The Plaintiff has not
discharged the preceding burden to prove the conditions of breach of contract hence the
allegations of breach against the Defendants should be dismissed.
B. Denial of the Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim
Owing to the failure of the Plaintiff to discharge the burden of proving that the breach of contract
actually occurred, the summary judgment based on the claim should be dismissed.
C. Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of an “Account Stated” Claim
In Shell Oil Co. v Litigation Fertilizer Chem. Co. 9 Wn. App. 596, 513 P. 2d 861 (1973), the
elements of “account stated” were held to mean “to import to an account the character of an
account stated it must be mutually agreed between the parties that the balance struck thereon is
the correct amount due from the hone party to the other on the final adjustment of their mutual
dealings to which the account relates. The mere rendition of an account by one party to another
does not show an account stated. There must be some form of assent to the account, that is, a
definite acknowledgment of an indebtedness in a certain sum…. True, assent may be implied
from the circumstance and acts of the parties, but it must appear in some form.”
The Plaintiff contention that the Defendants assented to and acknowledged indebtness of $43,
084.10 but has failed to provide summary judgment evidence of such assent or acknowledgement
by Defendants.
D. Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of a “Money Due on Account”
Claim
The Defendants rely on 1 Am. Ur. 2d Accounts & Accounting Section 26 (West 20070 to set
forth the elements of money due on account claim. The elements are prior transactions between
parties in a debtor-creditor relationship, an express or implied agreement between the parties on
amount owing, and an express or implied promise from the debtor to settle the amount. The
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment thus fails since there lacks any genuine issue of
material fact on the “amount due”.
E. Plaintiff’s Motion on All of its Claims Should be Denied upon Failure to
Mitigate Damages
As per 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WP 303.06 (7the ed.), a Plaintiff who
sustains damage as a result of the Defendant’s breach of contract has a duty to minimize the loss
suffered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is thus not entitled to recover for any part of the loss that
Plaintiff could have avoided with reasonable efforts. The Defendants informed the Plaintiff on
the legal budget od services to be rendered by the Plaintiff to Mr. Steven’s administrative
proceedings. However, the Plaintiff still exorbitantly billed the Defendants for legal services.
F. The Plaintiff’s hands are Tainted with Illegalities
In Columbia Community Bank v Newman Park, LLC, 304 P. 3d 472 177 Wash. 2d 566
(2013), the Supreme Court of Washington referred to Credit Bureau Corp v Beckstead, 63
Wash. 2d 183, 186, 385 P. 2d 864 (1963) and People’s Sav Bank v Bufford, 90 Wash. 204,
208, 155 P. 1068 (1916), and stated as follows: “From ancient times, the first maxim in equity
has been that one who seeks equity must do equity. Of similarly ancient provenance is the
requirement that those who come to equity must come with clean hands.” It is thus untenable for
the Plaintiff to claim that the Defendants did not pay Mr. Van Kampen’s legal fees, yet he did
not follow instructions issued by the Defendants or honor the terms of the contract between the
Plaintiff and Defendants, or meet timely filing deadlines.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s illegal and unwarranted actions against the defendants have caused the defendants
much loss. The Defendants thus request this court for dismissal of all the Plaintiff’s claims
against the Defendants with prejudice, an award of fees and costs to the Defendants as allowed
by law, denial of the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s and costs, rendering of a judgment that the
Plaintiff takes nothing and assess costs against the Plaintiff and any other relief that the
Defendants deem fit.
Declaration of Service
The undersigned hereby declares, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, that on this day, he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing be served via
email on the following:
VAN KAMPEN & CROWE PLLC
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4050
Seattle, Washington 9154-1000
(206) 386-7353
Signed at…., Washington this …. day of September, 2022.
……………….
Jason Stevens
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )