Hatsuyo Harbord v. Matthew Bean
73895-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Harbord worked for Safeway from 2004 and was terminated in May 2011; she sued Safeway (Harbord I) alleging WLAD claims and repeatedly failed to comply with discovery.
- In Harbord I the district court remanded and ultimately the superior court granted Safeway summary judgment and dismissed Harbord’s claims; this court affirmed.
- While Harbord I was pending, Harbord sued her former lawyer Matthew Bean and Safeway (Harbord II), asserting legal malpractice against Bean and reasserting wrongful termination/discrimination claims against Safeway and certain employees.
- Bean and the Safeway defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted both motions: (1) Bean — no evidence of breach or causation; (2) Safeway defendants — res judicata and statutes of limitation barred the claims and no basis alleged against Safeway’s counsel.
- The trial court imposed CR 11 sanctions totaling $27,492 (Harbord ordered to pay $9,164 now; remainder held in abeyance) and the Safeway defendants were awarded appellate fees for a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal malpractice against attorney (Bean): duty, breach, causation | Bean agreed to a stipulated protective order (SPO) without consulting Harbord and coerced her signature; this harmed her underlying case | Bean showed routine use of SPOs, SPO was model-compliant, not restrictive, and later vacated; no evidence of breach or causation | Summary judgment for Bean: Harbord failed to produce evidence or expert proof of breach or "but-for" causation |
| Preclusion/res judicata for claims against Safeway and employees | Re-asserted wrongful termination/discrimination claims in Harbord II | Safeway: identical claims/subject matter were litigated and disposed in Harbord I | Summary judgment for Safeway: res judicata bars the claims |
| Statute of limitations on WLAD/discrimination claims | Implied challenge to timeliness | Safeway: claims accrued at termination (May 2011); three-year WLAD limit expired before Harbord II filed | Summary judgment for Safeway: discrimination/termination claims time-barred |
| CR 11 sanctions and appellate fees | Harbord did not challenge the sanctions on appeal substantively | Safeway: suits were not law-/fact-grounded, pursued to harass, and contrary to prior judgment; appeal frivolous | Court upheld CR 11 sanctions and awarded appellate fees for frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853 (Washington 2004) (elements and preclusive effect principles cited in res judicata context)
- Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251 (Washington 1992) (no independent cause of action for violations of professional conduct rules in malpractice claims)
- Walker v. Bangs, 92 Wn.2d 854 (Washington 1979) (expert testimony often required to establish breach of attorney duty in malpractice actions)
- Geer v. Tonnon, 137 Wn. App. 838 (Washington Ct. App. 2006) (use of "but for" causation and proximate cause analysis in legal malpractice)