Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Gene Coulon Beach Park - Court Case (1973)
August 24, 1973 • Tos Mayor Avery Garrett Fro s Gene Coulon, Director of Parks and Recreation • .Sub ects Scott-Pacific Property 1 Tra smitted herewith for your information are documents in con- nec ion with the acquisition of Scott-Pacific property. ccs Council _President Finance Director I 1 i 't1 ..Ii IV I V ' 1`. , 'i . n . 3 4 _ 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 • 8 -In the Matter of the Petition ) of the City of Renton, a1 ) 9 Mu icipal Corporation of the ) NO . 735570 St•te of Washington to acquire • ) ' 10 by condemnation certain lands ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO DETERMINI and properties within the. City of ) APPLICABILITY OF INTEREST ON 11 Re ton,. King County, Washington,. ) ATTORNEYS ' FEES , JUDGMENTS ,. in connection with the acquisi- , ) ETC. 12 tion of such properties for park ) pl. yground and marine recreational ) 13 anal like purposes as contemplated ) by City of Renton Ordinance No . ) 14 2509 ) 15 16 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT: 17 Please note the above entitled cause on the Motion Docket 18 fa' the 27th day of August , 1973 at 1 : 30 P.M. as to the following 19 is ues : - 20 1. Fixing. r.easonable-:Appellate Attorneys '1. Fees , if 21 any, to be awarded Respondent. . 1 22 2 . To determine the interest, if any, due on the 23 Jury Verdict in the sum of $825 ,000 .00 between date of oral verdict and judgment entered to date 24 of Appeal. • 25 3 . Interest, if any, on Attorneys ' fees awarded 26 Respondent in said condemnation action during period of appeal . 27 4. Interest, if any, on the total Judgment between 28 date of opinion by the Court of Appeals and the filing of the Remittitur with the Clerk of the 29 Superior Court. 30 Dated this 21st day of August, 1973 , 31 32 Gerard M. Shellan City Attorney for City of Renton ' SHELLAN• PAIN 81'S+3ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO.SECOND ST.-DL30..P O.00X 626 • RENTON. WASHINOTONI 9805E AL?INe 3-8678 t • 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 In the Matter of the Petition ) 8 o,f the City of Renton, a Municipal ) Corporation of the State of Wash- ) NO . 735570 g ington to acquire by condemnation ) certain lands and properties within ) MOTION FOR AN ORDER 10 the City of Renton, King County, ) DETERMINING ATTOR' E` S ' Washington , in connection with the ) FEES , IF ANY , ON APPEAL, 11 acquisition of such properties for ) ADJUDICATION OF INT REST park , playground and marine recrea- ) DUE, IF ANY, ON FEE. , ETC. 12 t rnal and like purposes as contem- ) WHILE APPEAL IS PENNING plated by City of Renton Ordinance ) 13 No. 2509 ) ) 14 ) 15 • 16 COMES NOW the Petitioner herein, THE CITY OF RENTON, and 17 respectfully moves that the above matter be heard on August 7 , 18 1973 at 1: 30 P.M. as more particularly set forth on the atta hed 19 Notice of Motion and as further set forth in "Petitioner' s ( ity 20 of Renton) Memorandum Re Attorney 's Fees and Interest in Res•onse 21 to Brief of Respondent" 22 1 This Motion is based upon the records and files herein , 23 including the decision of the Court of Appeals , Division One , 24 Panel Two, filed with the KingCounty Superiour Court on July 27 , 25 1973 and upon Petitioner's Memorandum and attachments theret. . 26 27 'i Dated this 21st day of August, 1973 . 28 29 ,! Gerard . . S e an , City tt rney 30 for City of Renton 31 32 G HELLAN. PAIN & SWANS•N ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 90.SECOND 9T.BLDG..P.p.9•X 529 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98085 ALPINE 5-8878 • l • • it 1• • 9 • 1 ! I 2 V 5 Receipt for Cony Date Filed by Clerk ' 6 II THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 7 I the Matter of the Petition of ) 8 •t e City of Renton, a municipal ) NO . 735570 c•rporation of the State of ) 9 : W=shington, to acquire by condemnation ) PETITIONER'S (CITY 0' certain land and property within the ) RENTON) MEMORANDUM RE 10 C'ty of Rankin, King County, Washington, ) ATTO RNEY'S FEES AND i connection with the acquisition of such ) INTEREST IN RESPONSE 11 ; pi •perty for park, playground and marine ) TO BRIEF OF RESPONDEN' r-creational and like purposes as con- ) 12 t-mplated .by City of Renton Ordinance ) N. . 2509. ) 13 ) 14 • The above matter was handled by Mr. John K. Pain, Jr. , 15 A.sistant City Attorney for the City of Renton, from its 'nception I 16 w ich included 'a Jury trial before the• Honorable Henry Cl y Agnew, 17 J dge , commencing on the 28th day of July, 1971 and subse uent 18 1 a•peal to the Court of Appeals (Division 1, Panel 2) ; the Court 19 o Appeals Remittitur went down on. July 27 , 1973 . Unfortunately, 20 I I M . Pain was critically injured in an accident on July 21, 1973, 21 • a d has been hospitalized .ever since. . Therefore the undersigned 22 i. preparing this Memo on behalf of Mr. Pain. 23 24 .A The basic issue before this Court relates to Responde tus. 25 ! d- 'and for interest in the sum of Seventy Seven Hundred r nety 26 o and 11/100 Dollars ($7792 .11) as of July 27 , 1973 on he 27 . p. incipal amount ' of attorney'sa' fees allowed by the Trial ourt 28 i the total sum of. Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75 ,00 .00) 29 d which interest is to cover the period from October 291. 1971 30 t. July 23 , 1973 . Petitioner vigorously rejects the clali. for 31 i terest as .being contrary to law and a specific statute s 32 h-reinbelow set forth. SHELLAN. PAIN & SW NSON titioner's Memorandum ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 90.SECOND ST.BLDG..P O.90X 926 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98099 S +e 1 ALPINE 5-387- • • I • • x 1. F / , 4 I • 1 B. Respondent further demands additional attorney's fee - in the 2,, um of Zen Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($10 ,075 .00) for legal 31 -•ervices performed on the Appeal, total p prediciated on a •f 1-1 01.5 hours at a rate of $50. 00 per hour. ;1 I 5 6 C. In addition to the above, Respondent also demands int-rest 1 . 7 'I o the total original Jury Verdict of Mine Hundred Minetle=n 8 ; , ousand Seven Hundred. Twenty Seven and 48/100 Dollars ($9 9 ,727.48: 9 ' c•vering the period from July 23 , 1973 , when the Court . -of . ppeals 10 si_ned its Opinion, to July 25 , 1973 , which is actually one day 11 p for to the Remittitur coming down: 12 13 1 The Petitioner, City of Renton, rejects all of Responde is 14 , ide ands except that Respondent may be entitled to reasonabl- 15 attorney's fees on Appeal asprovided by Statute, 16 1 17 18 1 1 19 2. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Jury Verdict in th' s • con•emnation case as well as the attorney's fees allowed by the 20 1 1 21 Tllri.:l Court in the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75 ,000.00) It lodified the Trial Court's decision and Judgment in allgw ng . 22 I eig t percent. (8%) interest on the total Judgment as provide. 23 by e general statute and held instead that a: special statlule, 24 namely RCW 8.28. 040 (1943) was controlling as to all eminent domain 25 proc=edings. ' Attached hereto is a copy of said statute. In 26 I this case 27 "Judgment on Jury Verdict and award of attorney's 28 fees 'and appraisal fees" 1 . 1 ?9 was entered by the Trial Court on August 17 , 1971. The City' - 30 Notic- of Appeal was filed the next day. Due to the fact tha . 31 the C.urt had not yet decided, at the time the Judgment was a tared, 32 I 1 as ;to the amount of attorney's fees that would be due Resporde t 1 ? tit l oner's Memorandum. G}fELLAN, PAIN swANsor1 ATTORNEYS A AT LAW 100 SO.SECOND ST.SLOG..P.O.0OX e-8 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98098 P.ag' 4 ALPINE 8-8878 I I I 1 li hat part of the. Judgment was to be determined some timll 2 , 1-ter, after argument and study of Briefs by the Court si. ce 31, a that time 'some reasonable doubt existed as to what Still ute 4 m1 would be controlling in fixing the Attorneys ' fees . Howele , I 5 iIt e Court on August 17 , 1971, allowed reasonable expert witness 6 f-es of Nine Thousand Eight Hundred N ety Nine and 44/100 oilers 7 I ($9 ,899.44) and also, in connection with Said Judgment, pro ided ' 8 !th.t the amount of interest to be paid on said Judgment be 9 �de' ermined at a later date. 10 11 After extensive argumentsaad submission of Briefs , the ourt 12 en .ered a Supplementary Judgment, entitled "Order and Judl nt 13 ' . Fi 'ing Award of Attorneys' Fees and Interest" on October 29 , 14 1971 , at which time the Trial Court fixed the attorneys ' fe s 15 . at seventy Five Thousand -Dollars ($75 ,000 .00) and awarded i terest 16 On he Jury Verdict from the date of the verdict to the date of. 17 the Judgment on the Verdict at the rate of six per cent (6%) per 18 ann m, and further awarded interest on the Judgment on the V rdict 19 I ' and. on the reasonable Expert Witness Fees from the date of r ,e try 20 • of. t! e Judgment on the Verdict at the rate of eight per cent (8%) , 21 I H and further at the rate of eight per cent (8%) on the award f • 22 I • atto eys ' fees . This determination by the Trial Court wash 23 reversed by the Court of Appeals which held that the Trial Cou t 24 1 was 'n error in applying the general Judgment Statute (8%) in 25 . this case and' that, instead RCW 8 .28 .040 'was controlling in all 26 respects as to• these proceedings. ' 27 ' ; I • 28 I A: pointed out very succinctly by the Court of Appeals , a 29 :City, being a subdivision of the State , is not liable for interest 30 excIsp / where expressly provided by Statute or by reasonable 31 const. ..iction of a contract or Statute . ' Bond v State, 70 Wn!, d 746 ; . . 32 Petitioner's Memorandum 1 1 SHELLAN. PAIN 1I SWANSON P3 S 3 . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO.SECOND ST.BLDG..P.O.BOX 6 6 i HENTON. WASHINGTON 98086 ALPINE 5-d873 f I • t ' • rase v. Armstrong,. 47 Wn. 2d 480 ; see also Annot. , 24 A.L.R. 2d 2 • 28 (1952) ) • 4 Suffice to' say titre is no provision or even a hint that RCW 5 8 . 25 . 070 (Chapter 137, Laws of 1957) included or referred to the 6 p:yment of interest by any public condemnor in relation to the 7 a and of attorneys ' fees. The General Interest Statute passed 8 b the Legislature in. 1969 , RCW 4 . 58 .110 (2) which provides for 9 e'ght per cent (8%) interest, certainly does not apply since the . 10 C. rt of Appeals ruled on this very point in this sub)ectcase. 11 ' 12 Therefore, if any interest is due Respondent at all, i would 13 ' ha e to be based on the special Statute relating to eminent. domain 14 proceedings , namely RCW 8 .28 .040 , and which the Court of Ap eals 15 in this case held applicable; however, said Statute suspends all 16 in crest and the accrual thereof "for any period of time du ing 17 whi h the entry of final Judgment in such proceedings shall (have • 18 bee delayed solely by the pendency of an appeal taken in such 19 pro eeding." 20 • 21 It would appear that Respondent seems to agree with Petitioner's 22 pos ' tion on this point since Respondent has. conceded that IQ 23 interest is due on the Jud... ent for Ex e er t - - . - - - in the 24 sum •f Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Nine and 44/100 Do lars • 25 ($9, : 99.44) for t1n period from August 17 , 1971 to the date that 26 the emittitur was filed on July 27 , 1973 ! However, Responds t 27 be'li-ves that solely because the Trial Court determined the exact 28 e ou t of attorneys ' fees at a later date, namely, as per its 29 Supp emental Judgment on October 29 , 1971, that the eminent 'domain 30 statute is no longer applicable and that "the matter of atto eys ' 31 fees .pparently relates to a different lawsuit utterly divorc d 32 from - he condemnation action: " This , Petitioner rejects as being 'L HELLAN, PAIN & SWANSON p �t �7,/ ATTORNVYS AT LAW PETIT ONER'S MEMORANDUM f00SO.SECOND ST.SLOG..P.O.SOX eXe RENTON, WASHINGTON 98085 ALPINE 3-a378 Page ' . 1 legally unsound and a somewhat specious argument.. It eta ds to 2 r=ason that the award of Expert Witness and Attorneys ' fe s , 3 t•gether with the Judgment by the Court or Verdict by the ury 4 i a condemnation action relates to and involves the same roceeding 5 t e same subject matter involving the same parties and the very 6 s."ne lawsuit! It would be improper to "split up" a condemillation 7 action into;:different factions and thus apply different St tu tee 8 on interest to one and the same proceeding: 9 10 Be it also remembered that Petitioner had appealed from every 11 pa t of the Judgment which included the Jury Verdict, Attorneys ' 12 an. Appraisal Fees and all of these matters were duly argue and 13 con idered bythe Court of Appeals . The Appellate Court affirmed 14 the Judgment of the Trial Court except that it determined that 15 the Trial Judge erred in applying the General Judgment Statu e 16 whel in fact the special Eminent Domain Statute as found in 17 RCW 8.28.0t0 was controlling in all respects . No other 18 int-rpretation can be arrived at from a reading of the Appellate, 19 Cour 's opinion. It is obvious and certainly a matter of common 20 lens-, that in a case of this magnitude, the Court was unable to 21 acti ely determine the amount of attorneys' fees at the time he 22 , init al Judgment was entered but instead required additional 23 auth rities before reaching a final decision. This delay , if any 24 they was , certainly does not void the Statute controlling Eminent 25 Domai proceedings and needless to say, Respondent's award of 26 attor eye ' fees is derived from and based solely on this 27 conde 'nation action. Therefore Respondent is not entithd to 28 any 'nterest on the award of attorneys ' fees : • 29 30 3 . Respondent's Attorneys ' fees on Appeal. The Trial Judge 31 had awarded Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75 ,000 .00) unto 32 .Respon•ent 's attorneys as their fees at the end of the trial. p_ T �� `� �+ �,(� +may �/ GMELLAN, PAIN Eu SWANSONI rETI'TI��NER'S MEMORANDUM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 80.SECOND ST.BLDG..P.O.BOX 6 6 P 5.NTON. WASHINGTON 93055 SPj,ge ALPINE 3-8879 i 1 ••,S.tl 11 .. . +. • 11 � + his award was based on .the "reasonable fee" premise un'I r the 1 2 "rior Statute, RCW 8.25 .070 (Laws of the let Ex. Sess , 1967 , 1 3i +hapter 137 , Section 3) . Petitioner had contested said \a and on 41 the grounds that at the time Respondent filed its Motion,P t n or • 5II -n Award of Attorneys ' fees on August 6 , 1971 , the aforells id 6 j S atute had been amended and Senate Bill 363 became law b 1 7 i A gust 7 , 1971. This 1971 amendment limited the award of fees 8 t• the minimum fee schedule based on actual hours and trig time 9 \ 1 10 a case. Thusly, if the 1971 amendment had been held \a plicable 10 t• this case , Respondent, based on its own records , would ave 11 \ e.-n • entitled to compensation for three hundred (300) hour , 12 jin lading trial time. The minimum fee schedule applicable \would I - jhae been Thirty Five Dollars ($35 .00) per hour and its tit 1 14 1 `attorneys ' fees wild have amounted to Ten Thousand Five Hun red 15 I, lays ($10 ,500.00) : 16 I 17 The Trial Court, however, believing that the prior law1 f 18 "reasonable fee" was applicable because the fee had been ea ed . 19 Prior to the new law, awarded Respondent Seventy Five Thousa d 20 I Dollars ($75 ,000.00) : Thus for all intents and purposes , Respondent 21 I by - strange quirk. of the law, actually reaped a windfall Iof .. 22 1 app oximately Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($665 ,000 .00) in fIe s: 23 i . Be i also remembered that Respondent claimed three hundredl (300) 24 , • hour: of chargeable time up to the date of appeal which inclu ed 25 jl almost six (6) days of trial time: . In comparison, Petitioner's 26 i time records show a period of one hundred nineteen (119) hous ' 27 and -ive and one half (5 1/2) days in courtfor one and the s�- e 28 prbce-dings: 29 ` I R=spondent now claims compensation for an additional 2045 30 1 hours at $50 .00 per hour as its fee on appeal, or a total amlou, t 31 of Te, Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($10 ,075 .00) ;• , 32 ' . PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM GHELLAN. PAIN $SWANSON\ Page 6 ATTORNEYS AT LAW I I i 100 90.SECOND ST.BLDG..p.O.BOX 6 6 I RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 • ALPINE 0-a878 ; I • . . • I I• 1 1 ' stitioner does not have , as of this writing, the benefit of an 2 itemization of Respondent's time nor any time slips that have 3 previously been requested by Petitioner. It is Petitioner 's firm 4 p•sition that if this Court awards any attorneys ' fees al all 5 u to Respondent, based on the previous case history, then uch 6 f=es "shall not exceed the general trial rate , per day, for actual °d, 7 . ial time and the generally hourly rate for preparation a 8 pr.vided in the minimum bar fee schedule of the County in c hich '' 9 th- proceeding was instituted." This is the present law in effect. 10 (R W 8 .25.070 (4) ; Chapter 39 , 1st Ex. Sess. Laws 1971) . 0Lviously 11 by said language the minimum bar fee is therefore also the maximum 12 pe lissible , namely Thirty Five Dollars ($35 .00) per hour: 13 I 14 Petitioner believes that Respondent's request for addit.onal 15 att.'rneye ' fees , if based on 200 hours on appeal, is excessi e 16 and unjustified. As a matter of comparison, Mr. Pain 's time .. 17 records, on behalf of the City, for this whole appeal covering the 18 period from August 1971 to the ape, p g present show a total number o / 89 .9 19 hour It is difficult to see why Respondent should incur s many 20 addi ional hours as compared to Petitioner's time , especially p y 21 wher the latter was the Appellant: If the Court thould find 22 that over 200 hours were actually spent by Respondent, then the 23 maxinum allowable rate would be Thirty Five dollars ($35 .00)' er 24 hours or 57 ,052 . 50 as the very maximum of allowable , additional 25 attorneys ' fees. Petitioner also requests the Court to carefully 26 scru inize :Respondent' s time records . 27 4 . Additional Interest on Jury Verdict. Respondent requ sta 28 an ad•itional sum of Two Thousand Thirty Four and 30/100 Dollars 29 le(;2 ,034.30) as interest allegedly due , at the rate of six per ant 30 ( 3) p-r annum, from the date of the Verdict, namely August 3 , 1971, 31 to the date of filing of the -Notice of Appeal , namely August 13 , 1971 32 (Flits n (15) days. ) . It is interesting to note that RCW 8. 28 . 040 C HELLIN. PAIN & SWANSON PETITISNER'S MEMORANDUM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 30.SECOND ST.BLDG..P.O.BOX S d J 7 RENTON. WWVASHINGTON 98055 P 3 h e ALPINe 3.8878 1 hich is the controlling Statute, provides that the Verld et shall 2 i 'ear interest at the rate of six per cent (6%) per annum from the 3 1 •ate of its entry to the date of payment, except that nb . interest 4 .:hall be accrued or be payable during the period of appa' . In 5 ,his particular case, th&' udgment on Jury Verdict" wasl,e tared i 6 en August 17 , 1971 by the Trial Judge. The question thus:_ 'arises 7,, I -s to whether the entry of the written Judgment is contrlo 'ling or 8 ti e date of the oral Jury Verdict. A parallel 'question,'I •f course, 9 would be that if this matter had been tried to the Courts, without 10 ', II a Jury, would the interest commence running when the Judge issues 11 h s oral decision or would that-decision become effective •nly ' 12 w en reduced to writing by means. a Judgment and entered in 13 ' t e official Court records: It is interesting to note tIh t 14 ' ev-n Respondent claims interest on the Trial Court' s award of 15 at orneys ' fees only from October 29 , 1971, the date of the 16 wrtten Judgment signed by the Court, and not from the prio date 17 wh-n the Trial Judge .issued his oral' opinion thereon: 18 19. I Therefore Petitioner believes that the appropriate ate 20 fo the computation of interest is the date that a written, =ntr , 2T"-. I by eans of a Judgment or Order.; is made whether besed. on a Jury 22 V ver•ict or the. Court's decisions I • ,f 23 '. ,,, 24 II • I 25 • 5 . One other remaining issue relates to the question as to 26 whe her Respondent is entitled to interest on the total Jud tent 27 fro. the date the Court of Appeals signs its decision or whe the 28 , I Remi titur comes down to the Superior Court. In this instance 29 the ourt of Appeals ' Decision was signed July 23 , 1973 , and the 30 . • Remi titur was filed onJuly 27 , 1973. The Petitioner City p I'd 31 a the ull Jugment into the registry of the Court on July 26 , 11 73, . 32 1 . PRTI t IONER'S MEMORANDUM 1 SHELLAN. PAIN & SWANSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW Page 9 100 SO.SECOND ST.BLDG..F.O.`HO I N RENTON. WNASHINGTON 9809 ALeiN 8 79 • 1 consisting of the sum of Five Eight Hundred Twenty g n Thousa d 2 Dollars ($825 ,000. 00) as the Jury award for the "taking" , he 3 s m of Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Nine and 44/100 Dollars 4 ($9 ,899. 44) on account of Expert Fees , End the sum of Seventy Five 5 Thousand Dollars ($75.00) on account of attorneys ' fees . It was as th opinion of the County. Clerk that this Judgment does not become 7 fi alized for purpose of satisfaction until the Remittitur has as bee filed, namely July 27 , 1973 . Therefore , Petitioner be \ieves 9 tha no additional interest is due. 10 11 If the Court for any reason should determine that the award 12 of a torneys ' fees as set forth in RCW 8 . 25 . 070 (minimum Ear Fee 13 Schedule) is for any reason unconstitutional by reason of such 14 fee .,etermination method , then obviously Respondent would be 15 anti led to no. award at all since allowance of attorneys ' fee 16 in th -s type of case is a creature of statutorylaw and must be 17e stric ly construed. 18 • 19 20 Petitioner therefore respectfjlly requests that no interest-. 21 of any kind is due on Rf d ' sponents attorneys ' fees -------� 22 Y inasmuch as al ch such i terest does not accrue and is not payable based on RCW . 28 , 23 8 040 . Petitioner is not aware of any case or statute allowing a 24 differe t rate for attorneys ' fees as distinguished from expert fees 25 or vend ct for the "taking" arising out of the same transaction. 26 27 • Peti loner also suggests that in view of the 28 substantial 29 amount o attorneys ' fees heretofore paid, no additional fees • • should b- dui Resoondent but if the Court is inclined to so 30 award same that they be limited - to the rate specified in the 31 32 PETITIC`fE. '3 MEMORANDUM 7; CY0 S+HELLAN. PAIN SI SWANSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ICO SO.SECOND ST.SLOG..P.O.SOX 62e1 RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 ALPINE 5-8879 . 1 • 1 statute,. namely' $33 .00 per hour for a reasonable amount o hours 2 actively spent on appeal work. No additional interest sho ld be 3 a lowed on the jury verdict since the Judgment was paid in full 4 oie day before the Remittitur came down. 5 ' 6 ' 7 Dated this 20th day of August, 1973 . i 8 9 Respectfully submitted 10 , 11 Gerard M. Shellan 12 City Attorney 13 14 15 , 16 17 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 D HELLAN, PAIN & SWAN ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO.SECOND ST.BLDG.,P.O.SOX 62.3 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ALpINR. 5-8678 • 1 2 , _ ADDENDUM TO PETITIONER 'S (CITY OF RENTON) MEMOR ,NDUM 3 4 , Petitioner's Memorandum was prepared in reliance on je 5 Respondent ' s demand letter of Jily 26 , 1973 , copy attached , which 6 a. .ong others claims a total attorneys ' fees for appeal wor' of 7 Y 0 ,075 . 00 based on 201. 5 hours at $50 . 00 per hour. 8 Since completing Petitioner ' s Memorandum, Respondent's newest 9 'cl im for attorneys ' fees has been received increasing the fees • 10 .by about 150% to $25 ,000 . 00 and also modifying the total hours 11 ,sp:nt on appeal work from 201 . 5 to 234 hours , thusly Responl ent 12 nog' claims compensation at the rate of $17 . 00 per hour. 13 14 Respondent' s position is completely untenable since it ignores 15 comi.letely the direction of. the Appeals Court in remanding the 16 that er of fees on the appeal to the Trial Court "for theriJing 17 of easonabie attorneys ' fees on appeal" based on RCW 3 . 25 . 070 ., 18 Saii statute expressly states that such fees "shall not exce d 19 the ?eneral trial rate , per day for actual trial time and t14 20 gen ral hourly rate for r as provided in the Min=�'ru m preparation I 21 Bar Fee Schedule of the County . . . . " 22 23 'espondent ignores such statutory provision in its entirety 24 and n lieu thereof requests the Court to - legislate a new concept 25 of d. termining attorneys ' fees ' This , Petitioner maintains , • 26 cann t be done . 27 28 IC for any reason RCGI 8 . 25 . 070 (4 ) is invalid , then any 29 redre .s therefore will be with the legislative body of the St to 30 and ,• . spondent would not be entitled to any additional fees whatever 31 Be it also remembered that the specific purpose of -the 1971 :?m .ndmen 32 to sa_ d Statute was to avoid and eliminate the excessive award of SHELLAN, PAIN RI SWANSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SO.SECOND ST,SLOG..P.O.BOX d S RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ALPINE 5 3973 1 1 'ees from public funds and to limit same by means of the formula 2 ow contained in subsection (4) above quoted. 3 , 4 Dated this 21st day of August, 1973 . 5 6 Respectfully submitted 7 8 9 Gerard M. Shellan City Attorney 10 11 12 , 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ` 1 28 ' • 29 30 31 32 Add ndum to Petitioner' s Memorandum S HELLAN. PAIN 81 SWANSON ;1 J7- 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 90.SECOND ST.HLDI..,P.O.BPX 6213 RENTON. WASHINGTON 9806 ALPINE 3•d679 • • rCLL'- t T 7t LAW OFFICES -'OGLE,GAT S,DOB.RIN,-WAKE FIELD & LONG C"ILE A.DDRESS -DOCILE SEATTLE" `Ow AHD O.D05HI GERHARDT MORRISON ROBERT D.NAPLAN NLEY H.LONG JOHN T.PIPER DALE B-H•MERMAN (_Oe) C82-318L c1O,-RT.W G„iAHA THOMA3 J.MAKE? STEVEN H.PONO CPIA 5 F.OSHO P. EDWARD G.LO WRY,IR EDWARD M.ANCHIHALO Ti3 AAS• .MORR 'W JOHN P.SULLIVAN JAY H.LULAUF T LEX:32.80d7 OP;.O 3 KELL000 DUSTIN C.M,CPEARY BETTINA H PLEVAN !IAA K INOJF RO.NALD T.3CHAHS STEVAN 0.M4ILLIPS V.HOLLA D MIKE LILES,JR. RICHARO M.CUNTON J TYLER HULL WILLIAM L PARKER MICHAEL 5.COURTNAGE A>THUR G.GHUN E DAN P HUNGATE JAMES C.FALCONER RONALD E.MENIN TRY JOHN C.COUGHENOUR J.CARL MUNOT EDWARD C.B,ELE PHILIP N.SWEIOERT NARL J.EGE PICHAR0 5,S>RA UE PETER M.ANDERSON ROBERT S.JAFFE 1 4TH FLOOR NORTON BUILDING I.?wIN L.TR:IG ER J.CLIFTON FLEMING,JR. DON J.VOOT PAUL W STEERE H.GRAHAM GAISER MICHAEL W.DUNDY PURER A.ifEwA T N.OAVIO LINDNER J.MICHAEL EMERSON SEATTLE DONALD L.JOHNS.N DELBERT D.MILLER CHARLES R.BLUMENFELO DON PAUL JAOGL T DAD()M.SALEM TINE PETER D.SYRNES THOMAS C.O'HARE WASHINGTON 98104 COUNSEL LAWRENCE BOGLE CLAUDE .WANEFIELO M.BAYARD CRUTCHER July 26, 1973 FRANK .MECHEM EDW.S.FRANNLIN J. Robert Walker, Esq. S ellan, Pain, Stone & Swanson A torneys at Law 180 2nd Street Building Renton, Washington 98055 Re: City. of Renton re Scott Pacific Condemnation • • D-ar Bob: This will confirm our discussion late today in w ich you indicated that you had deposited a check with t e Court in the sum of $909,899.44. We understand that t is covers the amount of the jury verdict--$825,000 .00; t e amount of the witness fees--$9,899.44; and the amount of the attorneys' fees in the lower Court--$75,000.00_ We will attempt to draw this money out of the Curt immediately in order to curtail the further accruing of interest' thereon. • This still leaves unpaid the following items: 1. $2,034.30--This represents" interest on the jury verdict of $825,000 .00 at six percent per annum from t e date of the verdict, August 3, 1971, to the date of iling of the notice of appeal, August 18, 1971 (fifteen days) . • 4 . • • i ( BOGLE,GATES,DOBHIN,WAKEFIELD &LONG • ii . Robert Walker, Esq. d my 26, .1973 rage Two • 2 . $1.63--This represents interest on the expert itness fees (which was covered by the same judgment entered i n the jury verdict) at six percent per annum from the d to f the judgment, August 17, 1971, to August 18, .1971. 3 . $1, 262.16--T'nis covers the cost of our briefs n appeal. You should receive a cost bill on this very • hortly. 4. $10,075 .00--This represents attorneys ' fees on appeal. I reported to you that our time records show a total of 201.5 hours . At $50.00 per hour, this results n the figure stated. At your request, we are enclosing a ` erox copy of the Fee Agreement with the client, which sets orth that the appellate fee shall be $50 .00 per hour. 5 . $7; 792.11--This represents interest on the ower Court attorneys ' fees ($75,000 .00) from October 29, . 971 to July 23, 1973 . As we explained to you, we have • calculated interest on the attorneys' fee judgment during 1 .he pendency of the appeal on the same basis, and for the -ame reasons we did in connection with the prior case. For ' our information, we are enclosing a copy of our letter of June 9, 1971 to • Jack in connection with the prior case. he sum set forth in that letter was paid by the City of ' enton. You will note that actually we calculated interest -t the rate of eight percent per annum since it was not a •ondemnation judgment as such. In this case, we have cal- •ulated interest on the attorneys ' fee at the lower rate •f six percent. In addition to these amounts, we feel that interest ' s due from July 23, 1973 to July 26, 1973 (three days) at he rate of six percent per annum on the sum of $919, 72748. I this sum includes the amount of the jury verdict, the interest • thereon to August 18, 1971, the amount of the expert witness ees and the interest thereon for one day, the 1oWer Court • ( BOGLE,GATES,DOBRIN,WAKEFIL-LD & LONG i Robert Walker, Esq. ulN 26, 1973 rage Three -. ttorneys ° fee award including interest thereon to July 23, 973 . For the three days, this results in a total amoun of interest due of $453.57. If we can wrap the balance of1 - here items up in the next few days, we will waive any ciLaim or additional interest beyond the three days. Finally, we trust that an informal arrangement 7 an be arrived at regarding the allocation of real property axes. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BOGLE, GATES , DOBRIN, WAK. � FIELD & LONG 1/4_1P 1,Peter D. Byr` s Enclosures i ' � ."�1.' "r :I'.a�-•:r 5<' •'Z ;.;���._� mil.*?;:r:r 'e' ..r. 1,> . ^.I r,. y.�t •'4'! :'t' .J. rl•� >t -'r 5 �w • Y!fin:• • , =:r:'' it v • • - 1: e • f .Y 1+:': ,'-I,` •• ':f • t� 1 9' • '''I„. 'ice,. .if,Y �.', 1,:,a+n�'s�..;�r'. r,.i .tii '�', i• .y.:c'>..• •'Yr; ri,o.- c:f:;i.. • ;:�. ,..:�-�;~�::.� ,,,'.. tf�.; ' 'YL_,Z _ :t,''.4.V 'P-,.tY t.. �{'�.,..x• .r-_ :',Z'4 ', �'.',�`;• _t:••�x� '1'::':' •r:.:.. Y ;,i{ ':.�,.:,s L ,;• .n �r, •'.i.• '>;-.:, -may y,}�- �ie•,y""` �+ ,:».' .'�.+t... i',�+'.. -•ti!•f4..Sr,-.(i-: �,-1 '-a;, .:1' .r� - _ _ - :<% %"tis'• r -,�.t .t ��'•i' �Y�'e�i'":Yd-�.• ..o. -+L:•r, •-L.7:w.,tv.:. 3 Air r•�:~„j .'^r+ y: .p r4.e .^�-'•- rTLt - � 1 ^;tom•'},,r. .a• tx' q.}�: 6(�.n'�ii�'�a�;i-'.i�;a :..ii.?1.'. ..11:' i�,.n `�4-`'i.�' '•%Y�.' � 1�:,..�}..."J}'.L' ♦ 'ti,�..<+� �:f.L - 'L�'1~'~'.=•::. �•�- .Y,;•�{r,,..,•P7,. aytV.< -.,f',?4 :l.,:. ,7' F. ItL�V-l`:j 4''j,' _ _, '••.1.!:` •'.,•:,:• .: •. .,,.r ^.*'(-i,,.••,.4• :.q± -: p,is .�' i'ki.,,i,il:•`:,syra„ i" t.. rbr "f vr�. ,,e,.t• ° e, •+ •.Ai "i <,w•f V: .Sf{'` .i. �`s-.un�,a'-,...�.rs %k� A�:.:f: ;cz� - �-. ,r.:a. .�!r',:'`.G y�•Y�.a.�,.�f<�� +'� :�ilRf��.!-f.. /•pX�S'�:`.:>;.:`=2. J� .J -.r,..• .T. ',(•,�:r `,-f.., .�rryt ;' :!F.4 .:.+�:�h, eti h' ,f•.l, �7 4�: f.> .,..V`L<ve:.... `!'�';E'fi .'5% -v-•,{. �:'i>f+' .K7'^ '.]:±E,t.., .:.>'.,, i•,a,r,. '-y�'?'.:5'�7 �', ,,,.g,,o,: � ;';'+. - - -yc. .� ..3` _-r::`�. '+ r.. :a .:"1•.,f..r ..k,.t:. -.L.-' ,aw:.,•w't, i:....�: , I�.r-. - v-' •neeti! .�a: .vr.., .'..- v.t � �,. ..• S' •-.T <.,k"en clr fir". Y•.-�-4':{�'� �:.. .;t-.-.r.Ti:.7>:".:� ;iJ'. - :�'.•. ^Y.d ati.r: > ..K:^"i'.t'_ 1 '-ti,, T •• �cw>mr,,5.4•,�. r�.M,.;'•�', :„q 7;n '.._ ,.,:.'.'') .,,: - -• '.-i�- '�., r: -�{- c' C. .}-.4 .''" `}.:` „C 1;• .ry.:r'a'�,i� �L �-_+ .�2 c.v>•;'. .1.: �;:: _ "r`rS'.�:• .,4:. :�er n� c:}} ;}�, +,s• .'+i::. it i,, ,•anJ,_ ,,.;:.•''_:`:.+:e•.... ,,tA. Yt,,;rEtS°l: �;a'•< '?v.:r:S�'. �. •'FV`• ia. 1... - •..�.:.hJ' v,i.:� .^i::.'ry�-G k4.,3 NN .Y•;`:(Ji-i��ff..., :Y.:i•r•Y- J..• n. :, '\:�.�.::- •a,: G1•. 'a,'•.�r.•.:� .'h, ".}4 '• :'1``��:;n• P:;'._ ..^'. -e}'.f ,i:; .+_r 5•.,,, v';)i.ii.+' ,-•:', :,.�.. :r..-_'- --lr'J"'t';{y., �-0 't'JS•i 1!:� ..;;••••yy •.i5r7...a^- ,-S% ''Q• �r,...''r*'.=- > i"!\`'.:i ,".;: !'<�. .,jai, .,.,^ •.•e . •t'���." .-,. •'•7>, }:ry n �7.-,�.' rr-+c 5=, y.,.:,,'.:. �.- n.��-:L. _ ..4:'.'.'. rp. _ i:?:� .�.= q:•t,;'"e={. _i,:�'s:; (••,''.':Fr,i: .,t; - 'i:-'•,--;<" :'1'`:�• _.,- r^ .4 ^•f• •ft_',. ,r-.� ,Y.; K;A.-,,-i P...: .;ra.- c:% ,1,._ rr ;-?;4 :i•{ ' - 'iti: : ..p"` b._r i-;, e;'J:- . ice q�`?reC•;: ' • '••N '.in. .> iy -.t,... 'irr-.L, ,,. , '•?' t F ••{.it: - .,•l✓ ,:t�:<• :jam •':•�l;.�" .n:�,<- ,.,cJn..1q;"i?T'i•'• ? •b, _ ik":P_, - i:K`,c r.- �.•C+��.� �'e:,r*-., >::1}._tx,. • �::,: •�... •2r: e�;r� r'.iw•i t•;.r•1.� �;7 2,-.a�.:• `.f.>,:.�i: "•; ,:: "�/," L .f<:` S".r.•v,'• •f>•:'40't.� t`� - ,y ief-,.. t._ -9.`� .•-: -.'.'t: ,>d. ':'fu'- 'N::,'- -':�•F'•_''?ti-+:,, ',I.r. ..1- - ;:r,\^• �•y_.t,>:�t�;!'::` ;i^:Sj.:...F•;R, '3>cr fi':., j-� • a-a',ttt r."• t T L)�" 7" - i'C:oa.i" i',=:';:.., ,. �:t.-• 'Fa,.,i.P,. �� w, 'e ti., .: 'v: '•;?'S _T p.!.-..';,' 'n P. '.r: ,(.It9a� r .Y,.tt- 1.b '.t� W.r:!•`.4=,.,. L':•`e � �1.,. ",�.r. ^'r _.r=-. r"P';,: (. '�h�.• .+''7 sv. .c-•' ,.✓p t.' ,:•1=F,-`�••,. .,.`!a•_^,t r..o;,a.. sa�. •8' `^�'4 `„•; :tL 't: ..,nos.•..'�. x t• • } 'I'Y r ,•Y!.r • ; ��► I ;'1•'? ,;•. ��y4. c;-, -fir::'.••, '!' { `"t ,y: '!I.t: ' ' 1 '° ✓ :,L{.r"R ?-te I irlIscCLLANEous 8 98.040 I I i I I 'a,Q,4 y't` ' Y:1h Y �, t , , `i ;:I ,; , 1 46`M ,,�<jti1:35;.-,:r lz!i :: .i. . , _� . •the it ,il ? -f -. soever, 1 addition to the notices elsewhere provided by law, I; ; 4p; .; ;,V r ,4`s- a•::.r-- officer o board required by law to give notice of such proceedings - j' 1' ti,i' .tt,t •` • "z „' at least twenty '' •. , . ';�:,: f. ,M =; shall ca e to be served upon the adjutant general �'°'�' ;.•I• •i �-' ,�. �•�!-�'�;.���'•';;>-'� ':'• days in d dvance of any hearing therein, a written notice, setting iF i.I ;i t i • r �,tp �; ri t't j , forth th- nature of the proceedings, the description of such statei; •1 .�� '� �+' j r`' =;- propert•• sought to be involved therein or affected thereby and f` I"'I •• r � 4#,.4 fµ IK , '= • the amount of the proposed assessment therein. ;i.:�;;•i d ,!-,;-,4. :,. ';, ' �'� ,'ti'S'C. ` I T.F<GISLATIVE HISTORY I!` t aom "",- ; t,L I - mot t,r .>.- EhactLaws 1917 ch 107§125 p 397. - �3' fi , tb {" I • 1� 'Az_tTli;r i:Vyr See R'S § 8600. I • - a4, 4-ry, _, 'Hr.-4 r � 1 1 tti �, s .CRASS REFERENCES ''� , 3..% I ' '.•iII• • 1 1 EJhti�r'a.�s,�7�i• ••M4_`:, • Ac uis• ion of land for permanent military reservations, eminent do- i. , V. . 1 ` y, -? a, ,.r id c. I m in: RCWA 37.03.060. II• Iii : _•;.:;,,, Conde nation for military purposes: RCWA S.04.170 and 8.04.180. . r-� lea +y, ;i+a�,•,.,.,..,. COLLATERAL REFERENCES ' 1 •'', ; `:� x'`"• Am ur Eminent Domain §§ 322 et se ':I '-• '�M �w�'�'-^ •`''t° ' CJS Eminent Domain 244. ;';`.;i 11'.'. � '4sh'- :: ';'`=` "! f•i 1„I II 1 i I: 1 'C i,,1-K' N ' �.,l,' itk I.ey i. umber Digests: 1 '--c �, �, "': ':p"e IEm nent Domain 4=18L I, , . "' • rid' i,''. ''...,'s' II ;'I• •,.IIIit l..r f -v.•. :�,;tei, .,4: ' I k.II 11',:I'� I ,qaY "{:� r•}< 7:S7yf 5.,t •> 8.27..040 interest on verdict fixed-Suspensionduring peatd- it ' .ii 1;' "`"" `" ' `�===? '-"� e�ncy of appeal. Whenever in any eminent domain proceeding, it ii" ii 1 d .' c-�r:a;.:�,_t' #•' ;:''_: here ofore or hereafter instituted for the taking or damaging of i '1,'I!';; i •1 .:i•'; ?: 0 is ; pray.;to property, a verdict shall have been returned b the jury, 111 ;I ,� e. :•,,,,,.:.,„,,,.,,,,„,,,,,,„,,..„:„.`or b the court if the case be tried without a jury, fining the IIi6,t�j ,i I ,a , y �':.`t,, -•�. '•>r_; amo t to bebe � I;',li!' it '�,: :�•xegi...4.,.$ paid as compensation for the property so to rip'' �: tak:n or damaged, such verdict shall bear interest at the rate of l i Il; . T vim. > b - 'a ;:�- r< to the date of •1 ''11 ' '•'' t'•• 4,;Aii: from the date of its entry I' j, `' '< 4tkV-3'." �`k' six •ercent era ... I .•'11;:" ,�1j.`}';a�il •_..�: ..•�"a :'3 I ent thereof: I Provided, That the running of such interest 1 :' tL *ok'A"Rr;¢s-r,.�`- •`�. Isha 1 be sus encle 1c, and such interestany . r''`���;���''� I :G-1.ry p shall not accrue, for .��::1,�ii:,l' 1:I '�='�•� r��= ,•xf•. the entry of finaljudgment in such YY,•°r 11 �- "� ` z', "t`Y''4 • per od of time during whichF,. "'"' ',`,'„� r;••:, 1pr• eecling shall have been delayed solely by the pendency of an =T,®^'' ' 11 `•; 'i' '� `"''`=a ''�t I ap eal taken in such proceeding. -• • ' `' ,, `• "-"•-'z I r 1:1 bur ifi : ! ' ! i LEGISLITIVE I3ISTORY : I •+ • f • I M'• I • I � ST" .7..;�: t nacted Laws 1943 ch 23§1 p 53.; I I 1. ' 1F t > :r .,' ee FRS § 936-4. . ., It I II -- ''$<;i3rg I;I till , I., ,; y�} 'n5.; +�L•• x.}r E111.'!�I Xrti tuSyY y�j' 1 011 i'l .i t .., ;,„-7-..,...i..-'q:•-•:!.:,.,.iLis -,,,ftl?..,,,-.,-:: r1Z'k .,, :,.t )J_'' -el,tit. - .t+>... ,r!•` '•!sp 1;`ra.,•• b-:'.;i," :.,i Y ry,�7,i' _ f. ..i '..,f. _ ra': .1 A ' 1: , s _ •• iYy- ` - r. .:I f Vim' , :T, a .. ai3:;` 3-., „t .rre..• '.1 va, -+fit`;i.'�,-n ( .y,;i •r" ,r:r. - 1 r . ,.a` y'Y i .q. :r :ir- +fir'>..r' ;;,• ?.-'';' t l.•rs' i'1 Y•:rni �t;::`�,- •�a, �,�,i�_�+:`G„ray., .,� ,'-yl. ..��:i.r' -+,r Y •3•... :-Y.�'i.-+,`,Y^• :fly,n.. .r' C,r. id�,•e:`.•^�•:�i .Y.. .}.=.Y.,•:ry',•'•yf."r Jr• .•r :.K7 ..rrpi>-".rt: f•`-:?� ' •1 � , vma y' J'.'.. s 1` }. • .'� � r Cli. Tr"• v� ,-; i\ 4L ,, Y y - Y itis > ,t - - e:a ^i `: . ':1.: t �° ::Ili'•.'4r. ?S:r.aea . I��.J� �" .�� ` '•j� I:�"i:.: f n . v r tom ii:i ; am .- . y-.. .bx rtffa`!""��+fM':Yj_,',.,.:-,�:.:' iw:�+ -re�'�i:�i,'y'.4:.: . '�� '• ' i5- . ' • ' .• .' , $ - i+ . , �I,,.,; -e' , - •t._.. .i- , :i:s1.*,., >..•.''.. ,,,,. • it .1 it C1••--1� „f 1 •f .... ... ....... n 4 2 ti 3 • 4 ' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 6 In1 the Matter of the Petition ) of the City of Renton, a ) 7 Municipal Corporation of the ) 8 Stlate of Washington to acquire ) NO. 735570 by, condemnation certain lands ) 9 and properties within the City ) of Renton, King County, Wash- ) NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN 10 ington, in connection with the ) ORDER FIXING THE AMOUNT ac;qu=.sition of such properties ) OF REASONABLE APPELLATE 11 for park, playground and marine ) ATTORNEYS ' FEES TO BE 12 recreational and like purposes ) AWARDED RESPONDENTS as, contemplated by City of 13 Renton Ordinance No . 2509 . ) 14 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: 15 . Kindly note the above-entitled cause on the motion 16 17 docket for the 27th day of August at 1 : 30 p.m. • 18 TO: SHELLAN, PAIN & SWANSON 100 South Second Street Building 18 Post Office Box 626 Renton, Washington 98055 20 Attorneys for City of Renton 21 PT,F.ASE TAKE NOTICE that respondents ` Motion for an Order 22 1 Fixing the Reasonable Appellate Attorneys ' Fees to be Awarded 23 Respondents will be heard on the date above stated . 24 25 BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & L:NG 26 27 JAY H. ZULAUF Jay H. Zulauf, Attorneys for 23 1 Respondents Scott Pacific Terminal Inc . 29 and Pacific Tow Boat Company 30 I • 1 I ' Notice of notion for an Order ©OGLE. GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG NORTON [WILDING I. i< i g the Amount of Reasonable Appellate SF.ATTL_ Atto neys ' Fees Lo be Awarded Respondent:3 cstl::-6171 I� I • j I • • SHELLA'li :1 ) 1 I At'omnoys For.......... 2 i I 3 4 IN HE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING CaUNTY 5 6 In ,he Matter of the Petition ) . of °he City of Renton, a ) 7 Municipal Corporation of the ) State of Washington to acquire ) NO. 735570 8 by ondernnation certain lands ) and properties within the City ) 9 of enton, King County, Was- ) MOTION FOR AN ORDER ingt.on, in connection with the ) FIXING THE REASONAB E 10 I acquisition of such properties ) APPELLATE ATTORNEYS ' fpr park, playground and marine ) FEES TO BE AWARDED 11 rec 'eational and like purposes ) . RESPONDENTS as ontemplated by City of ) 12 Renton Ordinance No. 2509 . ) 13 COME NOW the respondents herein, Scott Pacific Telmina,. 14 Inc . and Pacific Tow Boat Company, and respectfully move. this 15 coult for an order fixing the sum of $25, 000 .00, as the amount of 16 • rea onable appellate attorneys ' fees to be awarded respondents . 17 Thi . motion is based upon the records and files herein, in2luding 18 the decision of th0 Court of Appeals of the State of Was.hin ton, 19 • Div sion One, Panel Two, dated July 23, 1973, and upon resp ndents ° 20 memorandum of law and the affidavit of Jay H. Zulauf filed ere- 21 wit . 22 • DATED this day of v-S� , 1973 . 23 24 � BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIEL' & LONG • 25 JAY H. ZULAUF 26 Jay H . Zulauf, Attorneys for 27 Respondents Scott Pacific Terminal Inc it and Pacific Tow Boat Company the GATES. DOBBIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG • It Mbt on for an Order Fixing the NORTON BUILDING Ra' onabte Aece!late Attorneys '• ,tATTLe ctu2.5ist Fees to be Awarded Respondents LAW OFFICES .IJOGLE,GATE • DOBRIN,WAKEFIELD &LONG (:ABLE ADDRESS "BOGLE SEATTLE" EDWARD G.DO6IRIN GERHARDT MORRISON ROBERT D.KAPLAN STANLEY B.LOPED JOHN T.PIPER DALE B.RAMERMAN ROBXRY W.GRAHAM THOMAS J.MCKEY S TEVEN H.POND (2O61i OO.-5151 CHARLES F.OSBORN EDWARD G.LOWRY.III EDWARD M.ARCHIBALD THOMAS L.MORROW JOHN P.SULLIVAN JAY H.ZULAUF ONLO B.KELL000 DUSTIN C.MCCREARY BETTINA B.PLEVAN TELE:G::32.8887 MAX KAMINOFF RONALD T.SCRAPS STEVAN D.PHILLIPS ROBERT V.HOLLAND MIKE LILES,JR. RICHARD M.CLINTON J.T(LER HULL WILLIAM L.PARKER MICHAEL S.COURTNAGE ARTHUR G.GRUNKE DAN P HUNGATE JAMES C.FALCONER RONALD E.MCKINSTRY JOHN C.0000HENOUR J.CARL MUNDT • E'D WARD C.DIELE PHILIP K.SWEIGERT KARL J.EGE RICHARD S SRRAGUE PETER M.ANDERSON ROBERT S.JAFFE 14TH FLOOR NORTON BUILDING IRWIN L.TREIGLR J.CLIFTON FLEMING,JR. DON J.VOGT PAUL W.STEERE H.GRAHAM GAIVER MICHAEL W.DUNDY ROBERT A.STEWART K.DAVID LINDNER J.MICHAEL EMERSON SEATTLE L.JOMNSON DELBERT D.MILLER CHARLES R.BLUMENFELD DON PAUL BADGLET DAVID M.SALENTINE PETER D.BYRNES THOMAS C.O'HARE WASHINGTON 98104 COUNSEL LAWRENCE BOGLE CLAUDE IE.WAKIEFIELD M.BAYARD CRUTCH ER 1 C (� • FRANK L.MEQMEM EDW.S.FRANKLIN August S t 2 0, 1973 it Gera d M. Shellan, Esq. Shel an, Pain & Swanson 100 South Second Street Building Rento , Washington 98055 Re : City of Renton re Scott Pacific Terminal Inc . Dear Ir. Shellan: In accordance with our earlier discussions, we are serviig upon you copies of the following pleadings : 1) Motion for an order Fixing the Reasonable Appellate Attorneys ' Fees to be Awarded Respondents; 2) Proposed Order Fixing the Amount of Reasonable Appellate Attorneys ' Fees Awarded Respondents; 3) Notice of Motion for an Order Fixing the Amount of Reasonable Appellate Attorneys ' Fees to be Awarded Respondents; 4) Affidavit of Jay H. Zulauf; HAND DELIVERED I .. • ' I . • • • • BOGLE,GATES,DOBRIN,WAKEFIELD &LONG Shel an, Pain & Swanson/Gerard M. Shellan, Esq. Augu-t 20, 1973 Page two 5) Memorandum in Support of Respondents ' Motion •I for an Order Fixing the Amount of Reasonable Attorneys ' Fees. We have concluded that we shall not argue our motion X for asditional interest at the hearing on August 27 . We plan tollbr'ng that motion on for hearing sometime later. If you have any questions or comments regarding these matte s please telephone the undersigned. Very truly yours, BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG s ! Cf Tay . Zu 41111110 Enclo,ures • • • • • • • I ' I I 2 aT"SI�iY�9 rSSy �'/7 • 12 S'd'iAuSJN fated S77cY77 '> r ..s, 1 2 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 6 In he Matter of the Petition ) • o,f Fhe City of Renton, a ) 7 Municipal Corporation of the ) State of Washington to acquire ) NO. 735570 8 by condemnation certain lands ) and properties within the City ) 9 of enton, King -County, Wash- ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ing on, in connection with the ) RESPONDENTS ' MOTION FOR AN 10 acq isition of such properties ) ORDER FIXING THE AMOUNT OF for park, playground and marine ) REASONABLE ATTORNEYS ' FEES 11 rec , eational and like purposes ) as ontemplated by City of ) 12 Ren on Ordinance No. 2509. ) 13 14 •INTRODUCTION 15 Respondents have moved this court for an order fixing • 16 the amount of reasonable attorneys ' fees to be awarded res•ondents, f 17 by reason of petitioner ' s unsuccessful appeal. • 18 By way of background, this action involves the City of • 19 Renton ' s condemnation of 11 . 8 acres of real property owned by 20 respondents . The action was commenced March 22, 1971 and culmin- 21 • ated in a jury verdict August 3, 1971 . 22 Prior to trial, petitioner submitted to respondents a • 23 wri ten offer in the amount of 468 500 . 00 . Then,$ just foLr days 24 before trial, petitioner withdrew its offer. At the trial 25 � pet tioner ' s two appraisers testified, respectively, that the fair 26 market value of the property was only $257, 000 .00 and $308, 500 . 00 . 27 The jury, however, disagreed with the petitioner ' s valuations, and BOGLE. GATES. DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG Memorandum - 1 NORTON BUILDING 6EATTLE 613 2.51 91 • • 1 broulht in a verdict nearly three times as great, $825, 000 . 00 . 21 The late Honorable Henry Clay Agnew entered judgment 3 on t' e verdict August 17, 1971 and, seeking to make the respondents 4 whol - , awarded respondents reasonable attorneys ' fees and expert 5 witn- ss ' fees . The total of the judgments exceeded $900, 00 .00 . 6 Petitioner then elected to appeal the judgments, • 7 asse ting sixteen assignments of error. The complexity of the 8 appeal, the numerous assignments of error, and the size of the 9 I judg ents at stake, required respondents ' attorneys to devote 10 them-elves, their time and their talent, to the proper defense 11 of t e .appeal. • Respondents ' attorneys did so, ultimately obtaining 12 a very favorable result. 13 On July 23, 1973, the Court of Appeals for the State of 14 Washington, Division One, Panel Two, entered its decision which, 15 with the exception of a minor reduction in the rate of interest 16 char.ed against petitioner, affirmed the judgments entered by 17 Judg- Agnew in their entirety. As a part of its decision, the 18 Court of Appeals found the respondents to be the prevailing party ' 19 and .warded respondents recovery of all reasonable attorneys ' fees ' 20 occasioned by petitioner ' s appeal . However, the Court of Appeals 21 • did of fix the precise amount of respondents ' appellate legal 22 fees, and, instead, remanded the cause to the Superior Cour for 123 King County for that purpose . The determination of respondents ' 24 appellate legal fees is the matter now at hand . • 25 26 I ARGUMENT 27 I . The Court of Au•DE als for. the State of Washington has Awarded BOGLE. GATES, DOBRIN. WAKEFIELD & LONG - 2 NORTON BUILDING :IEATTLE 60::-5181 1 Respondents Recovery of All Reasonable Appeal-Related Attorneys 2 Fee,s, and has Directed the Superior Court for King County to Fix 3 the Amount of Those Attorneys ' Fees . 4 Prior to the appellate decision in this matter, 5 respondents moved the Court of Appeals for recovery of all 6 attorneys ' fees occasioned by petitioner ' s appeal . In support of 7 their position, respondents cited the authority of the case of 8 State v . Kodama 6 Wn . App. 76, 483 P. 2d 857 (1971) . On July 23, 9 1973, the Court of Appeals filed its decision in this matter, and, 10 at age 15 of that decision, specifically granted respondents 11 rec very of all reasonable attorneys ' fees generated by the appeal. 12 In emanding the cause to the Superior Court for King County for 13 det rmination of the amoun.t of respondents ' reasonable attorneys ' 14 fee , the Court of Appeals stated as follows : 15 "The condemnee has filed a motion and brief requesting the award of reasonable attorneys ' 16 fees for this appeal . RCW 8. 25 . 070 authorizes 17 the awarding of such fees to the condemnee in these circumstances . State v . Kodama 4 Wn. App. 676, 483 P. 2d. 857 (1971) . The motion is 18 granted and the cause remanded to the trial court for the fixing of reasonable attorneys ' 19 fees on appeal. " Decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division 20 One, Panel Two, Cause No. 1629-42152-I, July 23, 1973, Page 15 21 I,I . In View of All the Factors Surrounding the Appeal, Ingluding 22 23 the Amount of the Judgments at Stake, the Complexity of the, Issues , 24 and the Quality of the Lea?-1 Services Rendered , an Attorneys ' Fees 25 in the Amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars is Reasonable . 26 The affidavit of Jay H. Zulauf filed herewith details 27 the nature and extent of the legal services performed for I3OGLE. GATES, DOE3RIN. WAKEFIF_L & LONG Memcrand= - 3 NORTON BUILDING .;s. rrLr• e132-ntot 11 I • 1 respondents in connection with this appeal . The affidavit evi- • 2 dences the planning, research, analysis, and drafting necessitate, 3 by petitioner ' s forty-four page brief and sixteen assig ments of 4 ' error, and the effort devoted to the preparation for or 1 argument 5 ' he affidavit details the magnitude of the dollar amounts involves 6 n the appeal, and the risks to which respondents were xposed . 7 loreover, the affidavit avit sets forth the belief of the affiant, and 8 I he belief of the members of his firm, that, all factors r considere 9 she reasonable attorneys ' fee for the services rendered in this 10 atter is twenty-five thousand dollars . 11 The State of Washington Code of Professional ResP onsi- 12 b ' lity, Disciplinary Rule 2-106 ($) sets forth the factors to be 13 considered when weighing the reasonableness of an attorneys ' fee : 14 " . . . Factors to be considered in weighing ' the reasonableness of a fee [attorneys ' fee] 15 include 'the following : 16 (1) The time and labor required, the novelty 17 and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal ser- I8 vice properly. 19 ( 2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employ- 20 ment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. 21 (3) The fee customarily charged in the 22 locality for similar legal services . 23 I (4) The amount involved and the results obtained . 24 (5) The time limitations imposed by the client 25 or by the circumstances . 2b11 ( 6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client . 27 I _ �i u • DOGLE, GATES, DOBBIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG NORTO,N nuILOINg, hi iEATrL 60Z.51st 1 . • 1 •• ( 7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the 2 services . 3 (8) Whether the foe is fixed or contingent . " CPR DR 2- 0t; (13) 4 - .1 I Respondents hc'iieve that of the eight factors listed 5 ab.ve, the factors numhe ed one (time, labor, novelty, difficulty, 6 7 sk ' ll) ; three (customaryfees) ; four (amount involved and results 8 ob ained) ; and seven (experience, reputation, and ability of la yers) ; are the most critical in the context of this case, and 9 th se factors will be discussed below in some detail. 10 Respondents would offer the following brief comments 11 12 wi h regard to the other .Lour factors . With regard to factor nu rber two (deterrence .1:I'om other ' employment) , respondents ' 13 attorneys were not precluded from other employment, except perhaps 14 by the City of ' Renton. With regard to factor number five (time, 15 16 Li itations) , respondents ' attorneys were not exposed to a y undue ti e pressures . To the contrary, however, the substantial lapse 17 of time between the filin,! of briefs and the hearing of or 1 argu- 18 men , forced the undertaking 11gg of considerable 19 additional. research to ins re that respondents ' attorneys were fully abreast of new 20 dev-lopments in the law . With regard to factor number six (extent 21 22 of .attorney-client relationship) , respondents ' attorneys have not 23 24 I rec"ntly performed any other services for respondents . , the attorneys P haveper t c�IIU � other work for cor p orations affiliated 25 1 Wit respondents . With i•,,q,l.rd to factor number eight ( fix d or 26 t contingent fee) , respon,iolit ;; ' fee arrangement contained both con- 27 tinaent and fixed elements. but was fixed with regard to appellate ©OGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIEL Oc LONG Memorandum - 5 NOHroN UUILOING I� SEATTLE . . .. �! 662.9161 • 1 1-gal services . • 2 � A. Factor Number One : The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of 3 I the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service 4 properly. 5 The time sheets of Bogle, Gates, Dobrin, Wakefi- ld & 6 L.ng (Exhibit "B" to the affidavit of Jay H. Zulauf) evid nce the . I 7 s bstantial amount of time and labor expended on respondents ' 8 be alf, a total of 234 hours . The issues involved in the appeal 9 we e extremely novel and complex, and respondents believe this 10 fa t is evidenced in their brief (Exhibit "C" to the affidavit of 11 Ja H. Zulauf) .- As the brief discloses, respondents were forced 12 to defend a number of issues for which there was no clear 13 Wa hington precedent, including, among others: the propriety of 14 on appraiser ' s commenting upon another appraisers compar ble 15 ; jsa e; the applicability and import of the then-new Shoreline 16 Ma ,agement Act; the admissibility of evidence relating to the 17 vo ume of business conducted on the property to show the interim 18 us to which the property could be put; and the propriety of the 19 court ' s instruction regarding a temporary decline in value . 20 Respondents further believe that a high degree of legal skill was 21 required to properly perform the legal services needed by 22j II respondents, and that the requisite level of skill was demon- 23Istr= ted in respondents ' brief, and demonstrated at the time of 24 1 oral argument . 25 B. Factor Number Three : The fee customarily 26 charged in the locality for similar legal services. • 27 II ;i BOGLE. GATES. DOBRIN. WAKEFIELD & LONG i11 Memorandum um - 6 NORTON BJUILDING ' SEATTLE 'I 6tl::-5131 f 1 Although appellate legal work of this magnitud- and 2 , complexity is not common, respondents believe that a cus omary 3 fie for such work, given the risks involved and the results 4 obtained, would be approximately twenty-five thousand dollars . 5 ' Respondents have submitted the affidavit of Jay H. 6 , Z lauf in support of the requested fee . If, however, the court 7 ' desires further substantiation of the customary fee for s ch 8 ; legal services, respondents are prepared to produce testilinony by 9 l , le:ding members of the condemnee ' s bar for that purpose .. At the 10 ; ti e Judge, Agnew awarded the attorneys ' fees for the trial aspects 11 of this case, respondents made a similar offer to produce testi- 12 ,'mo y regarding customary fees . Judge Agnew, however, found that 13 ;adaitional substantiation was not necessary and awarded respondents 14 ;$7 % , 000. r 15 C. Factor Number Four: The amount involved and the results obtained . - 16 As stated in the affidavit of Jay H. Zulauf, the total 17 amount of the judgments at stake in the appeal exceeded $9.0, 000 . 18 If a new trial had been ordered, respondents would have faced the 19 Possibility of losing as much as $650, 000 of. the amounts ad 'judged 20 due them. The results of the appeal were, of course, favorable, 21 i I and respondents ' attorneys succeeded in preserving judgment amounts 22 1 23 I of lore than $900, 000 . i D. Factor Number Seven : The experience, 241 reputation, and ability of the lawyer or 25 l lawyers performing the services . 26II The experience, reputation, and ability of Peter D. I 27I BIyr es and Ronald T. Schaps is well known in the legal community, o • II . - BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD et LONG Memorandum 7 j NORTON BUILDING II SEATTLE 602.797t . j • • 1 a d the reputation and abilityof Bogle, Gates, Dobrin, Wakefield 2 [ & Long is, respondents suggest, well established . That ability 3 ' would seem to have been demonstrated in the result obtained . 4 [ SUMMARY 5I In view of respondents potential loss on appeal, $650, 00C 6 , ( , he difference between the amount of the judgments, approximately 7. $"00, 000, and the amount of the valuation testimony by the city ' s 8 I1I lowest appraiser, approximately $250, 000) an appellate ella 9 � pp to attorneys ' f-e of twenty-five thousand dollars is appropriate . As a percent- 10 a•e of the total exposure on appeal ($25, 000 : $65, 000) , the fee is 11 j st four (4/) 'per cent . 12 Looking at the case as a whole, respondents have received , 13 j dgments exceeding by $650, 000 the city ' s lowest valuation 14 testimony at trial, and exceeding by $600, 000 the city ' s highest 15 J valuation testimony at trial . With an award of twenty-five 16 thousand dollars as appellate legal fees, respondents ' attorneys . 17 , shall have received legal fees in this case totaling $100, 000 . As 18 fj ,a •ercentage of $650, 000, the fees total less than sixtee n en (16/) pe cent . As a percentage of $600, 000, the fees total less than 20 se enteen (17%) per cent. '21 2.) Respondents respectfully submit that the sum of twenty- 23 fi e thousand dollars is a reasonable fee in this matter. 24 Respectfully submitted, 25 BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG 26 II • 27H JAY H. ZUUF Jay H . Zulauf, jj Attorneys for Respondents Scott Paci- fic and Pacific Tow Boat Company I BOGLE, GATES. DOBRIN. WAKEFIELD er LONG Me orandum - 8 N NORTON BUILDING ij S E A'IT L E db?-5151 • • • • 1 Dated........//7 3 „Jul62 ,' 3 I 4 IN ,E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY I 5 • 6 In t e Matter of the Petition ) of tle City of Renton, a ) 7 Muni ipal Corporation of the ) . Stat of Washington to acquire 9 q ) NO . 735570 8 by , c ndemnation certain lands . ) and roperties within the City ) ' 9 of Renton, King County, Wash- ) ORDER FIXING THE AMOUNT ington, in, connection with the ) OF REASONABLE APPELLATE 10 acquisition of such properties ) ATTORNEYS ' FEES AWARDED • for ark, playground and marine ) RESPONDENTS 11 recreational and like purposes ) as co templated by City of ) 12 Rento Ordinance No . 2509 . ) ) • 13 Respondents ' motion for an order fixing the amount of 14 . reaso able appellate attorneys ' fees to be awarded having come on .15 1 for h-aring on Monday, August 27, 1973 at 1 : 30 p.m. , and this 16 court having reviewed the records and files herein; having reviewer 17 ' the, pleadings submitted in support of, and in opposition to, 18 respondents ' motion; and having heard the argument of counsel for E 19 respondents and counsel for petitioner, NOW THEREFORE, 20 ' I IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amount of reasonable 21 appellate attorneys ' fees awarded respondents be, and the same 22 I hereby is, the sum of $25, 000 . 00 . I • 23 Done in open court this day of , 1973 24 25 j Presented By : JUDGE ''`G BOGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD & LONG I 27 JAY H. ZULAUF s . Jay H . Zulauf, Attorneys for Respondents Scott Pacific Terminal Inc . .. :Ind Pacific Tow Boat Company 1 1 ORDER 1 I ....,.„,,......„,„.. .: _. .., ....... . . . 1 .I •, :-.. ,,_,,,, , . ' . • iI .i" . i . : ' '''',, 4 r.,..1,.'.- l ':74 3 17•.„„ • I , . AivSuli . . • . . : l • A ' -----8.-1.1. 70/..7 -.); , , 11 ! 1 — ... • ................. . , ... 2 ... ,, 3 . , , . 4 g , IRT- E SUPFRIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 5 „ , .1, 6 Int e Matter of the Petition ) . of, t e ( ity of Renton, a ) 7 Municipal Corporation of the ) , ' Stat= of Washington to acquire ) NO. 735570 8 bicendemnation certain lands ) , and eroperties within the City ) • 9 of'il Rcnton, King County, Wash- ) AFFIDAVIT OF JAY H. ZULAUF irOten, in connection with the ) 10 ac0u sition of such properties for ' ark, playground and marine ) 1 11 recrzational and like purposes ) . as. centemplated by City of ) 12 Renten Ordinance No . 2509 . ) , . •h i, ) I 13 - • , • 14. STAT OF WASHINGTON ) ' ) ss . 15 , CC*N Y OF KING ) 1 - , 16 :AY H. ZULAUF, having been first duly sworn, on oath , I , . . . , 17 aepo:,:es and says : . . 18 1 . He is an associate attorney with the firm of , 1 19 Bo'glve , Gates, Tobrin, Wakefield & Long, the attorneys for I 20 ' repcndents Scott Pacific Terminal Inc . and Pacific Tow Boat 1 . , 21 Cd0p . ny . . . • , , . 22 ' 2 He assisted Mr. Peter D, Byrnes and Mr. Rona)..d T. 23 ' Sc'ha , s, both partners in the Bogle firm, in the preparation of the , 1 i 24 , 1 aplpe h:7.1te brief and in the preparation for appellate oral argument I . 25 1 • ' : - ' Inl t ,.s act.ion . 26 The legal services performed by respondents ' , 07 . atito :nevs in connection with the appeal included the following : , . . . E3OGLE, GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIELD[& LONG i Ae',Liyit: of J:.iv H . Zulauf - 1 Nom-0N 1-1U11-01N.a ! ' SEArTLE 1 i 632.5151 , I , . I . . . , . • . " I . • " • . i II 1 i ! Review petitioner ' s notices of appeal; Research regarding , appropriateness of direct 2 appeal to the Washington Supreme Court; • Research and preparation of memorandum re- 3 , yarding time and filing requirements of ' appellate rules ; Investigation to insure 4 completeness of ,statement of facts; 5 C Investigation to insure completeness of transcript on appeal ; Comprehensive review of transcript on appeal; ' Comprehensive 6 review of seven hundred thirteen page state- ment of facts ; Conferences with court 7 reporter . 81 Review appellant ' s opening brief; Exten- sive research regarding the, issues raised i 9 in appellant ' s sixteen assignments of error including : 10 ! 11 (a) . Research regarding propriety of "cross examining appraiser about his prior appraisals of the condemned 12 property; . • 13 (b) Research regarding the propriety : of cross examining appraiser about i l�r I his prior appraisals of neighboring -, i ' 15 property; • ; , 16 (c) Research regarding propriety . of the court ' s, admission of testi- 1 mony relating to the volume of busi- 17 ness generated on the subject property, to show the uses to which 18 the property was suited ; 19 (d) Research regarding propriety of '. . 20 instruction relating to the appropri- , ate uses of the subject property; . • 21 . (e) Research regarding propriety of 22 instruction relating to the factors V ' to be considered in valuing the 23 subject property; 241 ( f) Research regarding the propriety of the court ' s admission of testimony 25I relating to the replacement costs of ' • certain fixtures, to show the interim 26 i value of those fixtures ; 27 I I �' UOGLE, GATES, DOaRIN, WAKI" ' ' '! Atfi1ai v1t of Jay I . Zulauf - 2 rvorrrory BUILDING. I` II s A rrt_e ,l y fit).1-JI. f i • • 1 ,I • 1 (g) Research regarding the propriety 1 of the court ' s instruction directing , 2 jurors to consider the replacement ' i cost of improvements only to the extent 3 such costs affect the fair market value; 4 (h) Research regarding the propriety of the court ' s admission of an appraiser ' s 5 testimony, stating his opinion that a "comparable sale " used by another , 6 appraiser was not in fact a fair market • transaction; 7 (i) Research regarding the propriety of 8 the court ' s instruction relating to a temporary decline in market value ; 9 ' (j ) Research 'regarding the propriety of 10 the court ' s instruction relating to the effect of government permit requirements 11 • . 'on fair market value ;. . , 12 (k) Research regarding the necessity of the court ° s issuance of petitioner ' s • • 13 preferred. instruction.., regarding specu- lative damages; . 14 (1) Research regarding the court ' s re- 15 . fusal to give petitioner ' s preferred in- • , . • . . . struction regarding use of navigable • • 16 _ waters ; 17 (m) Research regarding the propriety of the court ' s award of $9, 899 .44 as expert . 18 . witness fees; 19 (n) Research regarding the propriety of the court ' s award of $75, 000 as reason- 20 • able attorneys ' fees; 21 - (o) Research regarding the court ' s award of interest . 22 23 Conferences among respondents ' counsel and respondents ' agents; Determination of strategy ' 24 to be employed in the appellate brief. 1 Drafting of respondents ' answering brief;2 J Redrafting and proofreading of brief; Shepard 26 izing of all cases; - Delivery of brief to 1 printer;. Proofreading of galley sheets; 27 , Arrangments for service and filing of brief. ;I ; 4 • N E.1GGLE. GATES. DOSRIN• WAKEFIELD F LONG AfLi,.;avit : jay IT . Zulay., _: - ,I NORrON BUILDING . it SEA rTLE fib^.-:51 91 II I I Preparation for oral argument; Review of appellant ' s and respondents ' briefs ; 2I� Shepardize all cases; Research regarding J �i recent opinion of the Washington Supreme Court relating to the "use of navigable waters Trip to Court of Appeals for argument; 51 Waiting for case to be called ; Oral argument of case . 6 7 Research regarding appropriate time to request appellate attorneys ' fees; Prepar- ation, service, and filing of motion for an 8 award .of appellate attorneys ' fees . 9 Review decision of Court of Appeals; Preparation, service and filing of cost bill; 10 Preparation,, service and filing of Agreed Order of Remittitur; Preparation, service • 11 • and filing of motion, affidavit, and memor- ' andum for an order fixing the amount of 12 respondents ' appellate attorneys ' fess. 13 Miscellaneous telephone calls and conferences with court reporter, printer, 14 Clerk for Superior Court, Clerk for Court of Appeals, attorneys for petitioner, and il- 15 I employees of clients . t �Ii Y 16 � ` 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of respond- / 17 ents ' fee agreement with this law firm. Attached her eto as 18 Exhibit "B" is a copy of this law firm ' s time sheets, showing a 19 • total of two hundred thirty-four hours invested in appeal-related , � 20 servi es in this action. Attached to the original of this • 21 pleading as Exhibit "C " .is a copy of the appellate brief submitted 22 on repondents ' behalf in this matter. 23 . 5 . Petitioner ' s appeal in this action posed a severe 24 risk o respondents . Petitioner ' s assignments of error raised 25 , the prospect that a new trial might be ordered . In that event, 26 respo dents ' judgments, totaling over $900, 000, would have been 27 ;I II vacat -d . Respondents would have been exposed to the expense 'and it • I , i' , I� UCGLE. GATES. DOHRIN, W.\KEF(=1_U t,LC LONG ..._ .1,_(,.! 11 OI_ - Li 1T Zi. i Li u -- '1, NOI TON iJUILDING II i SEATTLE i I i . 1 delay of a second trial, and would have risked the very real 2 possibility that a jury might come in at the petitioner ' s lowest 31 figure, $257, 000 . Thus, the appeal threatened respondents with a 4 po ential loss exceeding $650, 000 . 5 6. Considering the time and labor required to properly 6 ha dle this appeal; the novelty and difficulty of the issues in- 7 volved ; the skill requisite to perform the legal service, properly; 8 th- attorneys ' fees customarily charged for skilled appellate , 9 wo k; the total amount involved in the appeal ; the experience, • 10 reputation, and ability of the lawyers performing the services; 11 anu the results obtained ; it is the opinion of this affiant, and 12 th_ opinion of the members of his firm, that the reasonable 13 attorneys ' fee for the appellate services rendered respondents 14 is twenty-five thousand dollars . • 15 JAY H. ZULAUF 16 . Jay H. Zulauf 17 I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this . . -,., day 18 of !� 1973 . 19 . 20 Notary Pdblic in and for the State 21 I of Washington residing at 041 ,� 22 1 • 23 24 25 26. ,I 2711 q I' I' • • BOGLE. GATES, DOBRIN, WAKEFIGLD ,'k LONG VI AA= _ c.iav i t, of Jay H . Zulauf - 5 ii NORroN BUILDING it slE ATTLz • • • • • • • • • Respondents.1 Exhibit' • • Lr'r ��a:;1:L�rrr�T rendered byIn consideration of . called cone Gates , services rendered ' handlingtorncys ��� in Do�rzn, [lakefield and to be andconnection & Long of King County n �a_ith� re r-, . L (herein City of Renton y Cause , 5 -` Sen ration in owned en is seeking to condemn 735570 in which pay to Attorneys the °ndemn certain realthe orneys as Attorneys ' undersigned Sthe ed hereby a property tag two tto greater of t to 1, he Anfollow- hourly fee d on matter of $50 . 00 for each and trial includinghour ex end- time plus trial preparation by negotiated c 150 of all s c settlement or sums recovered, 2,e The Superior Court, in excess litigation through e amount of • 00 , suant to R.C. W. rg. 25. 070 .award of attorne , . : _ s ys ze Pur- It is further a endercdher court agreed that in the by Attorneysy phase event of on an chargeable on in connection wihe th atlas ln appeal (s) she fee thatthe basis of $50e00 � wit11 the services Attbrneysper. hour �Jithoutl shall be •rapf may receive under the preceding to 'I h . • Ong y ara- j!It is u ,- understood that all e 'Pert witness fees shall be borne inof it and expense , nc1 Dated: till by the unders2 tiding fined. ,______714_, 1971 . SCOTT PA I,PIC TERMINAL, zN . Jr By _-.-1------..------ZZ____________L Its v:r' • • • • • • EX_.S. IT "A" • Bogle Gates, Dobrin, Wakefield & Long Time beets City f Renton re : Scott Pacific Terminal, Inc . Appellate Pro,ceedir.: I 1 • J T 1 0 5 0 1 3. 0 g 5 4. 0 0 I- 6. :5 0 2 4, 0 0 1 5 0 2 1. 2 5 1 2. 0 0 , 9 0 .0 1 6. 0 , -r. C ;o • EXHIBIT "B" i • f • . • /I1 CITY OF RENTON Research /' re rules on appeals, jt is-, Re : Sc. Lt Pacific dicti.orial requirements, provision I/ for direct appeal to Supreme Court JHZ 1 I . • /3/7]! CITY OF RENTON Dictation of memo re rules on Re: Sc. tt Pacific appeal and direct appeal to Supreme Court JHZ 1 '✓ )/9/71 , CITY OF RENTON Conf w/PDB re requirements on — Re :. Sc tt Pacific ' ' appeal _. • JHZ 1,4 -2l-71 City Sf enton re Trip to courthouse to review Scott-P�cific transcript on appeal, etc. JHZ 2 l- . Terrnin is, Inc . --22-71 City of Denton re Review with sectys and file dept. Scott-Pa.ific procedures in accommodating our Termnls, Inc. files to court files and trans- cript on appeal JHZ 1/2 . _ • i 0-5-71 City of Renton re Conf with PDB, call to Dave J ✓ScotPcific Haggartyat JHZ I`" 1/2 City of enton re Call to Dave Haggarty, Memo to File ✓ Scott-Pa.ific Calla to Bob Green JHZ 3/4 _ / .)-27-. � City of ,enton re Research - _ - _ - - - - - - - _• h re appeal deadlines. JHZ ,, 1/4 71 Scott-Pacific • Trip ' to courthouse to enter judgment, I-28- City of Renton re ltr to Don Ellis re payment of expert l ` 71 Scott-Pacific witness fees , review of Wachsmith `�_ case, research re appeal deadlines JHZ 1-1/2 Call to Dave Haggarty, review of -20 City of Renton re rules on appeal, skimming of trans- )71 Scott Pacific . V - cript ' JHZ 1 '," Terminals . - .1 City of Renton re Review of court rules, skimming of 71 Scott Pac • fic Term, transcript JIIZ 1-1/4 '.971 SCOTT PA IFIC re Call from Haggarty; - -- . . 1/20 CITY OF -ENTON PDB t�/� ,D CONDEMNATION . _-- - --- • CITY OF RENTO i v. Review transcript and rules PD13 SCOTT I?T�CIFIC �/2 CONDEMNATION - • �/ • CITY OF RENTON re Rev. transcript . PDB r I SCOTT PACIFIC Conf .. JHZ • • „,//1/2 • CONDEMNA ION _. SCOTT PA IFIC re Call from Ellis; letter Ellis; • PDB '22. CITY OF •NTON Call from Pain; letter Pain; -_''4 CONDENNA ION straighten out appellate pleadin'ITs - 1 1/2 .971 CITY OF RL,NTON re Memo JHZ . - • PDB 1/4 2/27 SCOTT PACIFIC . Review new appellate -rules of 1-10-72 City o Renton re procedure, status report to SBL 'J Z 1 Scott-Pacific 1-24-72 City o ' Renton re File review, trip to courthouse, Scott- . acific Memo' to PDB and Memo to File Dept. , xer-ox documents, call Kathryn Graves JHZ 2-1/: • of clerk ' s office Re-drafting and editing the file 1-26-7 City of Renton re memos to file department and PDB ' JHZ ' 1/2 Scott-P.;cific 1-28-72 City or Renton re ' Call to Kathryn Graves, ltr to Scott-Pacific Kathryn Graves JHZ 1/4 -28-72 'City of Renton re 'Re-draft Memo to PDB JHZ 1/4 Scott-P.:cific 14-72 Cityof Renton re : Conference with PDB re Renton' s Scott Pc cific brief ' JHZ 1/.. 3-16-72 City of Penton re Review of appellant ' s brief JHZ 1/2 Scott-Pacific • • Review appellant' s brief, conference -17-72 City of Renton re with itn PDB and RTS JHZ 2 Scott P- cific City of Renton Review of transcript, reading of 3-23- re Scott-Pacific Payne brief, initial research JHT 3 72 • • . • 2:J:>, CI 2Y OF i:L'::';'O:: v. Quick review of galleys ; conference kTS I 1 SCOTT PACIFIC Jay Zulauf • 72 SCOTT FACIFIC re ' '24 CITY OF RENTON Call from Brown PDB 1/= CONDE1.2 ATION • • '72 SCOTT P CIFIC re Rev. rules on appeal • PDB 1/4 '9 CITY OF[ RENTON CONDEMN/TON • 972 CITY OF RENTON re better' Pain PDB 1/4 2/10 S_2OTT PACIFIC 1972 E: OTT PACIFIC re Call from Pain PDB 1/ 2/14 CITY ,OF RENTON CONDEI.IN - TION • • 1972 SCOTT PACIFIC re Call from Walker PDB 1/4 2/29 .CITY OF RENTON • CONDEMN ION , o. _ t . 1972 CITY OF ENTON , �TON re Call from Lowry, letter IIarlo • - PDB 3/2 SOO>'T PA IFIC Robinson 1/2 CONDEMNA ION 197?�' S ,OTT. ACIFIC re Call from Pain PDB 1/L 3/13 CITY 0 RENTON CONDEMi ATION • 1972 SCOTT PACIFIC re Rev. and study appellant' s brief PDB 2 3/16. CITY OF RENTON CONDEMNATION - . . . . ... - . - . . . - - - - •- - 972 SCOTT PACIFIC re I Conf. JHZ and RTS re appellant PDB 1 /17 CITY OF i ENTON 1 brief CONDEMNA ION 1972 SCOTT PACIFIC re Study and research re brief PDB 1 3/19 CITY OF I ENTON CONDEMN A`PION 1972 CITY OF • •NTON re Call Dick Pearson re Tacoma case PDB 1/4 3/20 SCOTT PA IFIC CONDEMNA' ION 972 CITY OF 'ENTON v. /23 SCOTT PACIFIC Conf. 3HZ , rev. . ' `il zWY statutes PDB , CONDEMNATION and rules 3/4 n • • 24'-72 City of 'Renton re Research rc brief in Supreme Court JI[Z 3 Scott-P cific at. -25-72 City oI: Renton re Research re Supreme Court brieg JIIZ 2 Scott- 'acific • -28-72 City of Renton re Research re Supreme Court brief JIIZ 1 Scott-i'acific n Research re Supreme Court Brief • 'ity of Renton re JHZ 1 3-29-72 Scott Pacific Research on Supreme Court Brief 4-5-72 City of Renton re JHZ 5 Scott-iacific • , ~ . 2 calls to Barry Reischland, research 4-6-72 City or Renton re . . for Supreme Court brief, draft brief JHZ 6 Scott-tacific . Terrain 1, Inc. Re-drafting and proof reading of . -r 7-72 City o ' Renton re briefs JIIZ 6 Scott- ' acific Sat. Conference with PDB and RTS, proof --8-72 City oz Renton re . reading and re-drafting of brief, Scott--Pacific research JHZ 7-1/: • Sun. Re-drafting and revision of Brief JHZ 4 4-9-72 `City of Renton re • I Scott-'acific �! 2 calls to Barry Riceland, call from -10-72 City of Renton re ' :.'DB, cite checking, re-drafting, , Scott-Pacific proof-reading (Re Brief) JHZ 6 • 2 calls to Barry Riceland, re-draft -11-72 City o ' Renton re and revision, cite checking, proof- . Scott Pacific reading (Re Brief) J-F32 a Proof-reading galley sheets from . • -12=-72City of Renton re printers, 2 calls to Barry Richling, • Scott-Pacific letter 'to Supreme Court, phone call to Wm. Lowry, trip to Metropolitan JHZ 7 Press • Proof-reading final copy of brief -13-72 City o , Renton re JIiZ 1 Scott- i acific • '17/72 CITY OF RENTON RE all to Mr_ Walker re statement of SCOTT PACIFIC • facts , arrangements for delivery of 1•• '�" statement of facts to Mr. Walker ; re- l • view of supreme court letter JIIZ 1/2 • • YAI.. , C`/72 CITY Ot J?F 'J'0:? ilL Review file ; preparation of bil-li-nq , SCO`rT PACIFIC and quarterly report J' 1/2 fi ,I, Lam; ,,,. 72. CITY. 'OF .RENTON v. Telephone conversation PDB; review RTS 2 .� � SCOTT P �CII'IC 'x = r . PDB letter; review appellant° s r'. brief • • tt 7-72 CITY OF RENTON v. Conference PDB and Jay Zulauf; RTS 3 SCOTT PACIFIC start review of transcript -21-7.2I ' CITY OF REi1TON v. Telephone conversation PDB RTS 1/4 r I SCOTT ACIFIC 3-24-72. CITY 0 . RENTON V. Work on transcript I SCOTT ACIFIC - - RTS 1 -28-72 CITY OF RENTON v. Review PDB memorandum and case RTS 12 ' SCOTT PACIFIC cited; brief conference PDB / 3-2, .-7 CITY 0, RENTON V. Continue reviewing transcript and RTS r' . SCOTT °'ACIFIC file; 1-3/4 -30-72 CITY O RENTON v.SCOTT ACIFIC Review PDB portion of brief• work- brief s on RIS 3 ON V,I CITE • - - - • - - - -- -' - - - 31-72 ' O RENTON CITY PACIFIC it0 on brief SCOTRTS 2-3/4 • -3-72 CITY 0 - RENTON v. Work on brief -� SCOTT ACIFIC RTS 1-1/4 - 4-4-72 CITY 01- RENTON V. ---- --- -- -- -- -- - -.. . . - - SCOTT 'ACIFIC Work on brief R S 3 '> 2 CITY Of ,,RENTON v. Work on brief SCOTT 'ACIFIC RTS 5-1/2 • --6-72 -CITY OF RENTON v. Conference PDB and work on brief RTS 2 SCOTT. P CIFIC -7-72 CITY 0 RENTON v. Work on brief and review Zulauf RTS 4-1/2 SCOTT .ACIFIC portions • 8-72 CITY OF RENTON V. Long conference with PDB and JCC RTS 6 SCOTT PACIFIC - gging over portions of brief, di•s- cussing format and arguments; work on brief f . -.10-7 CITY OF RENTON v. Work on brief; conferences Jay Zulauf; RTS� 6-1/2 SCOTT PACIFIC review Jay Zulauf portions 11-72 CITY OF RENTON v. Finalizing brief ; conferences Jay RTS 3 SCOTT PACIFIC Zulauf; brief research re expert ' _ - rebuttal testimony � : I • 72 SCOTT P\CIFIC re Work on brief PDB • 6 '2 4 CITY OFJ RENTON CONDEMNATION 72 CITY OF RENTON re "25 SCOTT PACIFIC Work on brief PDIB 3 -]y 972 CITY OF RENTON re Work on brief . 126 SCOTT PACItIC PDB4 • _972 SCOTT ACIFIC re Memo RTS Review draft of brief PDB 1 1/ :J/2 7 CITY Or RENTON CONDENL ATION 1972 SCOTT ACIFIC re Conf. JHZ and IT RTS re brief PDB 1 .1/ 4/5 CITY 0 RENTON CONDE1ATION • 1972 SCOTT ACIFIC Work on brief PDB 4 1/ 4/8 re CIT► OF RENTON CONDE:•. 'ATION 1972 SCOTT 'ACIFIC re Call Reisling; conf. JHZ and RTS , P B 4/13 CITY.O RENTON call from Campbell; revs brief; CONDE_ 1ATION letter to Campbell and Thieme 2 1972 CITY •F .}V c RENTON ' Call from Ellis P1L)B 1/ 5/15 re SC TT PACIFIC CONDE/. ATION . 1972 CITY F RENTON re Call from Ellis PDB 11 5/18 SCOTT PACIFIC • CONDE NATION 1972 CITY •F RENTON re ! Letter to clients ; call court of PDB 6/6 SCOTT PACIFIC yppeals clerk 1/ CONDEL NATION 1972 I CITY OF RENTON re Letter to Stay 'DB 1 8/21 SCOT PACIFIC COND •MNATION 1972 SCOT.. PACIFIC re Call from Thieme 'DB 1 10/26 CITY OF RENTON CONDEMNATION _ - • 1972 SCOTT PACIFIC re • . 12/8 CITY OF RENTON Call Pain; letter Clerk PDB 1 CONDE gNATION . • • • • • • • . 1119 ' City of Renton ZHz Call from Ellis PDB1/- 973 Re : Scott Pacific. Condemn- t ion 1 , 21 City of Renton - Re : Prepare for appellate argument-:,_ t. PDB 7 1/4 )73 Scott acific Cond,c i! ation ' • an . 22 City o r Renton - Re : Call from Drew;. call court clerk; 1973 Scott Pacific review briefs • PDT 2 Condemnation Jan. 23 City o - Renton - Prepare for appellate court argu- 1973 Re : Scott Pacific ment•; await argument at appellate Condem ation court; make argument ; conf. w/JTIZ; • letter Barb Robinson • PDB 5 3/' Jan. 25 City of Renton v, Call from Ellis PDB 1/ 1973 Scot Pacific Cond mnation Apr . 10. City or Renton - Re : Call from Rhondo PDB 1/= 1973 Scott Pacific Cond'emlation 'gpril City o - Renton - Re: Call from Campbell PD' 1/ I ' 73 Scott acific . ' . Cond'em! at ion 'qay 10 Scott acific a Call from Ellis ; call from Campbel • PDBL' 1; 173 Re : C ' ty of Renton . • • Conde nation Tune 21i Scott Pacific re ' Conf. JHZ; review statutes re 1973 City of Renton • attorneys ' fees on appeal PDB 1 Conde nation -. -..--. -. - - rune 221 Scott Pacific re Conf. JHZ , PDB 1 ' 1973 City of Renton ' . : I, Cond mnat ion /1'^.• ie 261. Scott Pacific Call from Ellis ' . PDB i 1/4 L,973 . Corpor t ion re • ' City o Renton • . • Conduct I ation . /23/73. CITY • F RENTON RE Conf. PDB and RTS re opinion issued SCOTT PACIFIC . by the court of appeals, discussion with Mr. Byrnes re preparation of • • cost bill, research re computation jof interest, conf_ with RTS JHZ 1 1/_ • • • r/ ' w • t • 1. 10/7-J CITY .O RENTON RE Conf. appeal PDB a eal JZ- 1/4 ' SCOTT PACIFIC - . 8/73 CITY 0 . RENTION RE Review brief of appellant; . revieE - SCOTT PACIFIC TERM- brief of. respondent; sort out cases • INALS , INC. fir• xeroxing; Sheppardization of .. . . ' cases ; conf. PDB • • JZ 3-1/2 ./19/731 CITY OF RENTON RE Con f.` PDB ' SCOTT PACIFIC TEF�I�iIJ_ JZ 1/4 ' LS , IN . , 1/22/7., CITY O • RENTON RE Review cases sited in appellant and SCOTT PACIFIC • respondents briefs; sheperdarized -- cases; conference with PDB JZ 2 /23/73 CITY O RENTON RE ; Conference PDB; trip to court of SCOTT ACIFIC appeals; waiting argument; actual argument JZ 4 =/21/73 CITY F RENTON RE Conf., PDB re appropriate procedure tol-_:.._ ... SCOTT PACIFIC . request appellate attorneys ' fees JHZ 1/ 3/22/731 CITY OF RENTON RE Research law with respect to -respond- SCOTT-PACIFIC 'ents titlement to appellate attorneys ' .' fees, research law with respect to • ;procedure for requesting appellate attorneys ' fees, tel . call to Mr. I • ,Thibodeauz, 'Commissioner of the Court ' of Appeals, preparation of motion for • Ian award of appellate attorneys ° fees •affidavit in support of motion, - hrief in support - of motion, trip to Court of Appeals for filing. of motion brief and affidavit JHZ 4 l/ • • /25/73 CITY OF RENTON RE Draft letter' to Mr. Harlo Robinson, SCOT PACIFIC enclosing copies of motion, affidavit , • and brief; arrangements for service Z = , ` _ _ _- of pleadings upon Mr. Pain 1/ ,an . 2 CITY Oi• RENTON RE: Letter to Robinson PDB ; 1/4 1973 SCOTT 1 ACIFIC CONDEM- • - , NATION ' ' an . 12 City' f Renton - Re : Call from Jorgenson PDB 1/4 1973 Scott Pacific Condo nnation • n . J_8 City r Renton Re: Prepare for argument • PDB . 4 3 973 Scott Pacific _ Condc' nation /" - • :4 73! CITY O : RENTON RE Reseairch re preparation of cost kill,, SCOTT ACIi'IC preparation of cost bill, conf . <-iith Helen Miller, review new procedural rules re cost bill, conf . BIU? re cost bill, conf. with PDB, memo to PDB JHZ 2 ;1.26/73 CITY tF RENTON RE Finalize Scott ' Pacific cost bill, SCOTT PACIFIC arrange service of cost bill, conf. • PDB, . two calls to judgment desk, • call to Commissioner Thibodeau at the court of appeals, arrangments for issuance of remitter, arrangments for • • withdrawal of funds JHZ 2 7/26/73 CITY IF RENTON RE Conf. with PDB re computation, of SCOTT PACIFIC interest, and attorneys ' fees JHZ 2 7/27/73 CITY OP RENTON RE Call Treasurer ' s office re tax clear- SCOTT PACIFIC ance, cwo calls to Mr. Hoge, call to JHZ Ir. Wright in clerk ' s office, draft stipulation and order re finality of ' appeal, draft stipulation and order re withdrawal of funds, call to Ir. Walker in renton, trip to Mr. . Talker ' s office in -Renton, procurement of Mr.. Walker ' s signature, meeting with Mr. Hoge, trip to courthouse, treasurer ' s office, entry of order re remitter, entry of order permitting withdrawal of funds, JHZ 3 ' $'2/73 CITY OF RENTON RE Conf. with PDB re filing of motion JHZ SCO T PACIFIC . / 7-23- Scott Pacific Re Tele call fr. Court Clerk - pickup 73 City of Renton . court' s opinion - Conf .PDB and JHC re Condemnation - opinion - research re interest, abandonment, rehearing, certiorari, • and moving costs - Conf JC re same; Qonfs PDB re same - _.._, _.. _ . . .. . RTS 2 . • . Scott Pacific Re Review PDB letter and memorandum to RTS . 2 7-24- City of Renton JC - 73 Conc_emnation - • . / : / . , . . -. • . . :, ,,..y 23 !1 Scott Pacific re. Conf. RTS and JUZ re opinion ; ,call -__ !73 l 'City of Renton Don Ellis ; call Sid Campbell; ,call , , Condemnation Harlo Robinson ; letter to clients ; letter to ' Payne . PDB 2 .11y 26, Scott acific re Conf . JHZ; work out figures ; eAll 1973 ( City o Renton from Rondeau; call from Walker; PDB 4 1/. Condemation call Rondeau; work on fees ; letter t: . to Walker; call Walker; confs. JZ July 27 City o Renton re Confs. JHZPDB re funds if 1973 'Scott acific . . . . . , Corpor tion Condemna, • J tion 1 . . , . . . ... . July 30 Scott Pacific re 2 calls from Hodge; letter to 1973 City of Renton Hodge; call Walker; PDB• 1 Condemnation - . , July 31 City o Renton re Length ai memo to JHZ 1973 Scott Pacific . . PDB 3/ • Conde nation Aug. 2 CityCitSr bf Renton re __ . , . „. . , • •, L 1973 Scott Pacific Conf. JHZ • • PDB 1/4 . Conde, nation • , . • ..---- ---- "--'--777- . , . , • . • . S EXHIBIT "B" • . . ' ... ...,. ., • . ., . . . . . , • . _ • . ... . --. • • • ' • , . . . . . . . , . • , . , •-• • .. • • . •• . • - . ' ' . • . , r , . . , . . . . , :• . 1 , • , . . '3[3/71 CITY OF 11ENTON . RE !Two calls, to Mr. Shellan ' s office, _ SCOTT PA IFIC discussiop of payment of attorney'SE' ' fees, interest and cost bill; . draftin of stipulation and order for release • c • • . . . , . c , of funds deposited. in ' payment of • cost bill, and interest on expert . •_ witness fees; letter to Mr. Shellan i • . . . • enclosing stipulation and' order - i JHZ 1 1/: • . , • . . . . , . • . . . . . , 8/16/73j CITY ,OF RENTON RE Review transcript on appeal; Review 1 SCOTT PACIFIC . lower court judgments.; review appel- late court decision in preparation r • for motion for attorneys ' fees; I • • [ . t Compile and review time sheets re- garding attorneys ' time ; Draft motion • • and notice ; preliminary research re- i garding memorandum in support of . . . • attorneys' . fees. JHZ 2 • . . . . • . . . 8/17/73 CITY 0 RENTON RE Call to Mr . Shellan ' s office ; review ; SCOTT. DACIFIC letter from Mr. Shellan; review Mr . Shellanrs alteration to order for disbursement of funds ; additional . . _. . . 'research regarding the award of . _ attorneYs ' fees . Draft of affidavit • in support of attorneys ' fees ; draft . " of memorandum in support of attorneys ' fees, Conferences PDB ' JHZ 7 1/ • . • • 8/18/73 CITY OF RENTON RE Revise and redraft affidavit in . SCOTT PACIFIC ' support of attorneys ' fees, and memor andum in support of attorneys ' fees ; I 1 I proofreading JHZ. 3 8/20/73! I CITY F RENTON RE ! proofread all pleadings, making final SCOTT PACIFIC corrections; rearrange exhibits to affidavit, arrange service and filing • of notice, motion, affidavit, memorani- . dum, letter to Mr. Shellan JHZI 2 1/ . . 1 .. • . . . . . . -1-------- . ''. . . TOTAL 16 1/, • • I 'i. • . . . . - . . • • . . . . L., -. •_. • . .. • __ ... _ ,, . . - • .. • :, . . . . . 1, • • . • • . • • • • • .: . • • , . i• . • • • . . . . .. •