Mireille Lambert, V. Eric Leitschuck, 81658-6

Background

On March 26, 2020, Mireille Lambert petitioned King County Superior Court for a protection order alleging extensive digital stalking, harassing emails, threats, and attempts to contact her workplace; she attached over 100 pages of communications.
The court issued a temporary protection order and set a telephonic hearing for May 14, 2020; Lambert was represented, Leitschuck appeared pro se.
At the May 14 hearing Leitschuck acknowledged receipt of the petition, did not deny sending the messages, and the commissioner found Lambert credible and entered a three‑year protection order.
Leitschuck moved for revision (hearing June 18, 2020); the court denied the motion.
On appeal Leitschuck challenged service, personal jurisdiction, sufficiency of findings, and alleged judicial bias (including the award of attorney fees). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lambert)	Defendant's Argument (Leitschuck)	Held
Service of process	Leitschuck consented/waived formal summons and acknowledged receipt, so service was proper.	He was not properly served with a summons (received petition by email but not summons).	Waiver/consent: Leitschuck expressly consented to proceed; court found he was served — no reversible error.
Personal jurisdiction	Acts occurred in Washington and continued as an ongoing pattern that adversely affected a Washington resident, so RCW 26.50.240(c)/(d)(i) authorize jurisdiction.	He moved to Oregon March 23, 2020 and thus superior court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.	Jurisdiction existed: acts began in WA and continued in a pattern affecting the petitioner in WA; statutory bases apply.
Findings of fact	Court issued sufficient oral and written findings (and incorporated oral findings into the written order).	The order lacked necessary findings to support the protection order.	Findings were adequate and detailed; Leitschuck failed to assign particular errors to findings, so they stand as verities.
Alleged judicial bias & attorney fees	Court acted properly; fee award authorized by RCW 26.50.060(1)(g) and no ability‑to‑pay finding is required.	Court was biased (credibility rulings, no sanction for alleged spoliation, awarded fees without finding ability to pay; his self‑representation disadvantaged him).	No evidence of bias; credibility findings supported by record; fee award lawful without ability‑to‑pay finding; self‑representation is not bias.

Key Cases Cited

In re T.W.J., 193 Wn. App. 1 (trial court discretion standard)
State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (abuse of discretion review)
Copeland Planned Futures, Inc. v. Obenchain, 9 Wn. App. 32 (consent dispenses with service of summons)
In re Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518 (unchallenged findings treated as verities)
Tapper v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 122 Wn.2d 397 (requirement to assign error to specific findings)
In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887 (presumption against judicial bias)
Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164 (objective test for judicial impartiality)
State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. App. 325 (burden to show actual or potential bias)