Muffin Faye Anderson v. Comcast Center Xfinity Home Security, 75176-0

Plaintiff Muffin Faye Anderson, a Comcast customer, sued Comcast for breach of contract and anticompetitive conduct after billing and service problems (security, cable, internet outages and disputed charges).
Anderson filed her superior court complaint and two amendments in June 2015; the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice on October 30, 2015, on res judicata and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
Anderson suffered a debilitating stroke in September 2015 and later filed multiple post-judgment motions (to vacate, for a new trial, to reschedule trial, and to seal medical records).
The trial court denied her motion to vacate, denied the new trial motion, denied the motion to reschedule trial (treated as CR 60 relief), and denied sealing medical records for lack of a stated basis.
On appeal Anderson timely challenged the denials of the new trial, the reschedule (CR 60) motion, and the motion to seal; the court and parties acknowledged some filing irregularities but proceeded to consider the timely appeals.
The Court of Appeals found Anderson’s appeals frivolous and affirmed the denials for lack of any debatable grounds or supporting facts to justify relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CR 59 new trial motion was meritorious	Anderson argued she should be granted relief from dismissal (reiterating underlying claims)	Comcast argued no grounds stated for CR 59 and motion filed well after deadline	Denied; appeal frivolous — no facts or timely CR 59 basis stated
Whether CR 60 relief (reschedule/vacate) was warranted due to Anderson's incapacity	Anderson relied on her stroke and incapacity to excuse proceedings and justify vacatur	Comcast argued order predated stroke, no evidence of incapacity at relevant time, and motions were duplicative	Denied; abuse of discretion absent evidence of incapacity at time of challenged order; appeal frivolous
Whether sealing medical records was justified	Anderson sought sealing but did not identify compelling privacy/safety grounds	Comcast did not contest; trial court said no basis shown to seal	Denied; sealing requires identified compelling privacy/safety interests — none shown; appeal frivolous
Whether appeal itself is frivolous under RAP 18.9(c)	Anderson renewed underlying claims but presented no new debatable issues	Comcast moved to dismiss as frivolous	Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous — no reasonable possibility of reversal

Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wn. App. 811 (2001) (abuse of discretion review for CR 59 new trial motions)
Barr v. MacGinlan, 119 Wn. App. 43 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard for CR 60 motions)
In re Marriage of Treseler & Treadwell, 145 Wn. App. 278 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to seal)
In re Guardianship of Wells, 150 Wn. App. 491 (2009) (definition and standard for frivolous appeals under RAP 18.9(c))