COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
WEST DIVISION, SEATTLE COURTHOUSE
VAN KAMPEN & CROWE PLLC, a Washington professional limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. JASON STEVENS and WENDY STEVENS, husband and wife, and their marital community, Defendants | ))))))))))))))) | Civil Action No.: 1:21-cv-02646 |
DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Defendants Jason Stevens and Wendy Stevens (“Defendants”) submits the following counterclaims to Plaintiff Van Kampen & Crowe PLLC (“Plaintiff”) Complaint as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Jason Stevens and Wendy Stevens bring this Counterclaim against Counterclaim-Defendants Van Kampen & Crowe PLLC. As set forth more fully below,
THE PARTIES
- Counterclaim-Plaintiff Jason Stevens is a resident of King County, Washington.
- Counterclaim-Plaintiff Wendy Stevens is a resident of King County, Washington.
- Counterclaim-Defendant Van Kampen & Crowe PLLC (“Plaintiff”) is a law firm in Washington, with its offices in Seattle, King County.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Wash. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 13.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background
- Sometimes in March 2017, Defendants approached Plaintiff seeking legal representation in case no. [insert case number] (hereinafter referred to as the “DOH case”), which action was filed in [insert court] between the Defendants and the Department of Health.
- The Plaintiff and Defendant agreed on an expected budget of $3,900.00 and a retainer of $2,000.00.
- Defendants issued clear and concise instructions to the Plaintiff requiring the Plaintiff to settle with the Department of Health for reason that the civil action relied on erroneous information. Thus, through Mr. Van Kampen, a representative of the Plaintiff, a settlement was to be reached and the dispute resolved.
- Further to the Defendants instructions, the Plaintiff, through Mr. Van Kampen, was required to engage the investigator and, where necessary, engage with staff from the Department of Health to help guide the settlement process.
- Mr. Van Kampen represented that he would settle the matter with the State Department of Health and clarify that there was an error on their part.
- Contrary to the instructions given by the Defendants, Mr. Van Kampen failed or otherwise neglected to engage the investigator or any staff from the Department of Health. In fact, Mr. Van Kampen failed to submit, on behalf of the Defendants, the Answer and Request for Settlement and Hearing by the deadline of April 24, 2017. Further and without consulting the Defendants, Mr. Van Kampen filed a Motion to Dismiss alongside a duplicate Motion to Seal.
- Unfortunately, both motions failed and the Defendants were never made aware of the Plaintiff’s failure to file the Answer and Request for Settlement and Hearing on time, nor were they made aware of the motions filed in court.
- The Administrative Judge presiding over the said civil action noted that attorney Mr. Van Kampen failed to timely file his Answer for defendants, and that submitting Motion’s does not relieve the responsibility of Mr. Van Kampen to timely file his answer.
- The Administrative Judge then moved to extend time to attorney Mr. Al Van Kampen until June 2, 2017 to file the answer and opportunity for supplemental brief to address the missed filing and settlement request procedure as part of the Answer process.
- Incidentally an inappropriately, the costs and charges incurred due to the Plaintiff’s willful disregard to follow Defendants’ instructions were forced upon the Defendants.
- Plaintiff breached the contractual agreement between it and Defendants. Plaintiff failed to abide by the instructions of the Defendants which were made clear that the Defendants sought to settle and clarify the error situation with the Department of Health out of court.
- Consequently, and due to the aforesaid breach, Prince suffered loss.
COUNT I
LEGAL MALPRACTICE
- Defendants refer to and incorporates herein the paragraphs alleged herein above, and make them a part hereof as though set forth at length.
- Sometimes in March 2017, Defendants retained Plaintiff to provide legal services to Defendants in connection with the DOH case, thereby establishing an attorney-client relationship between the parties.
- As Defendants’ counsel in the DOH case, Plaintiff owed a duty of care to Defendants, requiring them to exercise the knowledge, skill and ability ordinarily exercised by other similarly situated lawyers. Further, as a purported specialist in litigating and trying high-stakes, complex litigation cases, the professional services rendered by Plaintiff should have been comparable to other complex trial specialists, imposing upon Ross and BGR a higher, specialist standard of care.
- Contrary to that duty, Plaintiff was professionally negligent in not complying with statutory requirement to file answer and request for out of court settlement as was warranted and represented to the Defendants when the Defendants agreed to retain Plaintiff’s services.
- The negligent acts and omissions of Plaintiff were below the standard of care for comparable attorneys who practice in this community, especially attorneys, like Van Kampen, who he is very capable of settling the dispute as per the Defendants’ instructions. Plaintiff’s professional negligence was a substantial factor in Defendants inflated charges by the Plaintiff.
- As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s incompetence and professional negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
- Defendants refer to and incorporates herein the paragraphs alleged herein above, and make them a part hereof as though set forth at length.
- Sometimes in March 2017, Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other hand, entered into an agreement whereby Defendants retained Plaintiff to provide certain legal services in connection with the DOH case in a competent fashion. Defendants agreement with Plaintiff instructed Plaintiff to seek out of court settlement with the Department of Health.
- Plaintiff breached the agreement by incompetently failing to act per the Defendants’ instructions. Plaintiff rather than filing an answer together with a request for settlement, failed to comply with court directions and client instructions. Further, Plaintiff filed two motions contrary to the terms of engagement between the Plaintiff and Defendants.
- As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s incompetence and contractual breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
COUNT III
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
- Defendants refer to and incorporates herein the paragraphs alleged herein above, and make them a part hereof as though set forth at length.
- Plaintiff owed Defendants a fiduciary duty to act at all times in good faith and in the Defendants’ best interest, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the services for which it was retained with reasonable care and skill, to act in the Defendants’ highest and best interests at all times, and to not expose Defendants to any unnecessary risk or peril. This fiduciary and confidential relationship was never repudiated by Plaintiff at any time herein mentioned.
- Plaintiff breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to Plaintiff by doing all of the acts and omissions as herein alleged. Among other things, Defendants breached their duty by failing to properly act as instructed despite warranties and assurances. Instead, Plaintiff placed their interest in charging unconscionable fees above Defendants’ interests, and by generally mishandling, mismanaging, and overbilling in this case to such an extent that Defendants were forced to incur excessive and unconscionable legal fees and expenses.
- Furthermore, in doing all of the above described acts and omissions constituting Plaintiff’s breach of their fiduciary duties owed to Defendants, Defendants sustained damages, including but not limited to, legal fees incurred as a consequence of Plaintiff’s failure to adhere by court directions. Defendant sustained further and additional economic and out of pocket losses and damages to be presented at trial, all according to proof.
- The acts and omissions constituting breach of Defendants’ fiduciary duties were committed with oppression, fraud and/or malice. As a result, Defendants, in addition to actual damages, may recover exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Plaintiff.
COUNT IV
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
- Plaintiff though this action sought to collect old debt from the Defendants that the Defendants never agreed to pay and did not owe. The debt resulted from unauthorized and unreasonable attorney’s fees.
- Van Kampen, a member of the Plaintiff wrote the deceptive ‘informal arrangement’ without explaining the meaning on the rate sheet nor his intentions with intent to unreasonably bill the Defendants.
- The Plaintiff’s member Van Kampen claim of advance deposit of $2,000.00 was indeed a retainer and has not justified utilization of the retainer.
- In connection with the collection of a debt, Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, have used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means, in violation of Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. In numerous instances, Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, has used false representations concerning the character, amount, or legal status of a debt, in violation of Section 807(2)(A) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A); or
- The acts and practices alleged in Paragraph 37 constitute violations of Section 807 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Pursuant to Section 814(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l(a), the acts and practices alleged herein also constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)
- Plaintiff has violated the FDCPA as described above, with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, as set forth in Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A).
- Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), Section 814(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l, and Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461, as amended, authorize the Court to award monetary civil penalties of not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FDCPA.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim-Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
- Enter judgment in favor of Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiff and against Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant;
- Award damages, including compensatory and/or punitive damages, lost profits, all other appropriate damages, as well as costs in an amount to be determined at trial;
- Award costs incurred by Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff for Defendants in this action; and
- Grant any, other, or further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: March 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
By
—————————————
Jason Stevens,
Pro Se
—————————————
Wendy Stevens,
Pro Se
1037 NE 65th Street, #80817
Seattle, Washington 98115
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 )