T-mobile Usa, Inc. v. Platinumtel Communications, Llc, 75208-1

Background

T-Mobile and Platinumtel (Ptel) entered a Wholesale Supply Agreement with a security interest in Ptel’s equipment, accounts, bank funds, and other collateral; the contract required arbitration for billing/service disputes and provided that the prevailing party could recover attorneys’ fees.
T-Mobile alleged Ptel defaulted on >$3M in payments, cut off service, and filed (1) a court Complaint for Replevin and Injunction to take possession of collateral and (2) an arbitration proceeding under the contract.
The trial court issued a temporary restraining order but later denied T-Mobile’s motion for a writ of replevin and preliminary injunction, finding T-Mobile failed to show imminent dissipation of collateral and that much of the listed collateral (funds, accounts) was not subject to replevin or was insufficiently described.
Ptel moved to fix fees and enter judgment; three days later T-Mobile filed an amended complaint and opposed the fee motion. The trial court awarded Ptel attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party and dismissed T-Mobile’s court claims with prejudice.
Arbitration continued; T-Mobile expected an arbitration award in its favor. T-Mobile appealed the trial-court judgment, arguing the court lacked authority to enter final judgment and award fees while the central dispute remained in arbitration and that replevin was improperly denied.

Issues

Issue	T-Mobile's Argument	Ptel's Argument	Held
Whether court could enter final judgment/determine prevailing party and award fees while central dispute pending in arbitration	Court could not enter final judgment or name a prevailing party until all claims (including arbitration) resolved	Trial court properly resolved the limited, ancillary court proceeding and could declare Ptel prevailing for those claims	Court affirmed: trial court could enter final judgment on the limited replevin/injunction proceeding and award fees under the contract
Whether trial court erred by denying replevin for insufficient specificity	Secured party may not be able to identify collateral/location when debtor conceals assets; replevin should be available despite lack of exact particularity	Replevin requires specific description and location; funds/accounts not subject to ordinary replevin absent designation	Court affirmed denial: T-Mobile failed to describe collateral and location with required particularity; money/bank accounts generally not repleviable unless identified
Whether RCW 4.84.330 statutory “prevailing party” definition controls contractual fee clause	Statutory prevailing-party definition should prevent fees until final resolution	Contract contained a bilateral fee provision; RCW 4.84.330 inapplicable to bilateral contractual clauses	Court held RCW 4.84.330 did not control; bilateral contract language governing fees applied
Whether T-Mobile preserved challenge that amended complaint created live claims preventing judgment	Amended complaint created ongoing court claims that barred final judgment	T-Mobile failed to identify or press specific live claims and did not respond to Ptel’s arguments about loss of right to amend after losing dispositive ruling	Court held T-Mobile did not preserve this argument; vague references insufficient

Key Cases Cited

Kaintz v. PLG, Inc., 147 Wn. App. 782 (recognizing review de novo for statutory/contractual fee-authority questions)
Hawk v. Branies, 97 Wn. App. 776 (1999) (RCW 4.84.330 generally inapplicable where contract contains bilateral fee clause)
Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 165 Wn.2d 481 (2009) (statutory provision designed to make unilateral fee clauses bilateral; does not override plain bilateral contract language)
State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599 (2003) (definition and substance-over-form test for final judgment)
Apgar v. Great American Indem. Co., 171 Wash. 494 (1933) (replevin is action to determine right of possession to personal property; statutory requirements on description)