Lynnwood Country Club Apartments Llc V. Catherine Gassman, 86784-9

Lynnwood Country Club Apartments LLC (LCCA) sued Catherine Gassman to eject her for unpaid rent and utilities; Austin Hsu represented Gassman.
Hsu, while representing Gassman, claimed in pleadings and orally that LCCA's counsel acted in bad faith and that multiple bar complaints were pending against opposing counsel.
The trial court granted LCCA’s motion for attorney fees and imposed CR 11 sanctions against Hsu and his employer, Snohomish County Legal Services (SCLS), for these statements, finding them false and uncorrected after acknowledgment by Hsu.
Hsu’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court; he appealed, challenging both the sanctions and the fee award.
The appellate court focused on whether the trial court made adequate findings to support the CR 11 sanctions and whether the award extended to oral statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Appeal	Hsu's motion for reconsideration and appeal were untimely due to local rule noncompliance.	Hsu argued that filing, not noting, was required; local rule is permissive; no prejudice occurred.	The appeal was timely; local rule did not mandate immediate noting; motion filed within deadline.
Basis for CR 11 Sanctions	Hsu's assertions about bad faith and bar complaints were false and uncorrected, warranting sanctions.	CR 11 does not apply to oral statements; findings lacked specifics on pleading violations.	Trial court’s findings were insufficient; reversal and remand for specific findings required.
Fee Award Authority	Fees should be awarded as sanctions or under relevant statutes.	No basis for fees given nature of action; authority for fee imposition unclear.	Insufficient findings on authority for fee award; needs clarification on remand.
Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal	Hsu’s appeal is frivolous and warrants fees under RAP 18.9(a).	Appeal raises meritorious issues on findings and rule interpretation.	Appeal was not frivolous; no sanctions on appeal awarded.

Singleton v. Naegeli Rep. Corp., 142 Wn. App. 598 (timeliness of appeal, application of court rules de novo)
Buckner, Inc. v. Berkey Irrig. Supply, 89 Wn. App. 906 (failing to note motion for reconsideration does not render it untimely)
Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250 (reasonable inquiry required for CR 11 sanctions)
Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210 (purpose of CR 11 and standard for sanctions)
Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193 (necessity of sufficient findings for appellate review of sanctions)
Gordon v. Robinhood Fin., LLC, 31 Wn. App. 2d 185 (abuse of discretion standard for review of sanctions)
Advocates for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577 (standard for finding an appeal frivolous)