John Higgins, D/b/a Nw Prokleen, V. Kcd Trucking, Inc.
86648-6
Wash. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- NW ProKleen (John Higgins) and KCD Trucking Inc. had an oral contract for cleaning services with no agreed rate.
- NW ProKleen performed services and sued for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment when KCD Trucking did not pay.
- Arbitration ensued; NW ProKleen was awarded $7,626 after the arbitrator found a right to reasonable compensation despite no agreement on payment terms.
- NW ProKleen timely requested a trial de novo but the request was signed by counsel, not by Higgins personally, as required by court rules and statute.
- KCD Trucking moved to strike the request for procedural noncompliance, and the trial court granted this, awarding attorney fees to KCD Trucking and reinstating the arbitration award.
- NW ProKleen appealed both the striking of its request and the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural validity of trial de novo request | Substantial compliance or curable error should suffice | Strict compliance is required by statute and rule | Strict compliance mandated; request was invalid |
| Harshness of remedy (striking request) | Striking was too harsh for a signature mistake | Rule/precedent require striking noncompliant requests | Striking appropriate under plain language/precedent |
| Attorney fee award authority | No basis for fees (since striking was error/premature) | Fees are proper under statute/rule since request failed | Fee award proper; covers fees post-arbitration |
| Fees on appeal due to prevailing party status | KCD not entitled; amount pleaded exceeds $10,000 | KCD entitled per applicable statutes/rules | KCD entitled to fees under statute/rule, not RCW 4.84.290 |
Key Cases Cited
- Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 2 Wn.3d 528 (Wash. 2023) (strict compliance required for party-signed request for trial de novo under arbitration rules)
- Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wn.2d 518 (Wash. 2003) (court interprets arbitration rules as if drafted by Legislature)
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wn.2d 804 (Wash. 1997) (interpretation of arbitration rules must follow legislative intent)
- Shepler v. Terry’s Truck Ctr., Inc., 25 Wn. App. 2d 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022) (reinforces need for strict compliance with arbitration rules)
- Hanson v. Luna-Ramirez, 19 Wn. App. 2d 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (supports strict procedural compliance in arbitration appeals)