Michelle Baxter v. Richard Ah Loo & Catherine Koniseti
49511-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Early-morning crash: Baxter rear-ended a stopped vehicle on March 2, 2016; Koniseti was driving and Ah Loo owned the vehicle; Baxter suffered serious injuries.
- Pre-suit communications: Baxter’s counsel contacted Kemper (insurer) by e-mail in March and corresponded with adjuster Maria Danek about coverage and liability.
- Complaint and service: Baxter sued Ah Loo and Koniseti on April 14; Ah Loo was served April 16.
- Default and insurer contact: Baxter’s counsel warned Kemper on May 12 that he might move for default; Kemper’s new adjuster (Karen Pearson) left multiple voicemails mid-May and later e-mailed defense counsel to appear.
- Default judgment entered May 20 for ~ $1.35M; defense counsel filed notice of appearance that afternoon and moved to vacate the default judgment on May 26, supported by declarations describing the adjuster’s attempts to contact plaintiff’s counsel.
- Trial court vacated the default judgment under equitable principles/CR 60(b), finding plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to respond to the adjuster’s inquiries was inequitable and contributed to the default; CR11 sanctions were separately imposed on defendant for misstatements in a declaration (not at issue on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment | Baxter: vacatur was based mainly on a single unsupported finding (counsel’s alleged concealment); no causal link or excusable neglect shown | Ah Loo: plaintiff’s counsel ignored adjuster’s calls and emails while a default hearing was imminent; equitable relief appropriate under CR 60 | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; default judgments disfavored and facts supported equitable vacatur |
| Whether plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to respond justified relief under Morin/CR 60 | Baxter: unlike Morin the insurer already knew of suit; counsel’s conduct did not justify vacatur | Ah Loo: Morin permits considering plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to communicate as equitable ground | Court: Morin supports relief here; facts reasonably supported CR 60 relief |
| Whether White factors required explicit analysis and were met | Baxter: trial court did not analyze White factors and record doesn’t support them | Ah Loo: factors (prima facie defense, excusable neglect, diligence, no undue hardship) are met on the record | Court: even if White applied, record supports vacating the judgment |
| Whether appeal was frivolous warranting fees under RAP 18.9 | Baxter: N/A (responding to vacatur) | Ah Loo: appeal frivolous, seek sanctions | Court: arguments had some merit; deny sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696 (Wash. 2007) (standard of review for vacating default judgment)
- Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745 (Wash. 2007) (consideration of plaintiff counsel’s communications with insurer in vacatur analysis)
- Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc., 92 Wn.2d 576 (Wash. 1979) (default judgments disfavored; equitable relief principles)
- White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348 (Wash. 1968) (factors for setting aside default judgments)
- Friebe v. Supancheck, 98 Wn. App. 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (equitable character of vacatur proceedings)
- Fowler v. Johnson, 167 Wn. App. 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard in vacatur context)