IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING NO.

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING KENDALL BAKER, individually and collectively on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 0; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1 through 0; inclusive, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 NO. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff KENDALL BAKER ( BAKER ), through undersigned counsel, for her class action complaint against Defendant U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. ( US LEGAL ) and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 0 and DOE INDIVIDUALS 1 through 0 (collectively Defendants ); inclusive, alleges as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE The price of a lawsuit is high and growing higher. How costly, and the history and rate of growth, are difficult to measure directly, but lawyers the individuals best positioned to witness the trend and effect of civil litigation costs overwhelmingly report a problem. 1 public policy concern is exponentially magnified when institutional litigants, such as casualty insurance companies and large corporations, are allowed to leverage their market share and 1 WSBA Task Force on the Escalating Costs of Civil litigation; ECCL Final Report (June 1, 1) at p.1. This SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

2 influence into undisclosed exclusivity and/or bulk purchasing agreements with Court Reporting Agencies to reap undisclosed financial discounts. In 1 alone, there were,0 total collisions in Washington This figure does not take into account the many thousands of nonvehicle related insurance claims occurring annually in Washington. The sheer volume affords institutional litigants unwieldy leverage when negotiating longterms, bulk services, including court reporting services. Undisclosed, unequal rates and terms (between litigants to the same case and receiving the same reporting services) function as costshifting mechanisms subsidizing part of the insurance carrier s litigation costs at the expense of injured individuals. By enacting the equal-terms requirement, the Washington legislature prohibited court reporting services from charging different rates, for the same service, to different parties in the same case. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff BAKER is domiciled in Washington and a resident of King County.. Defendant US LEGAL is a for-profit Texas corporation registered to do business and in fact engaged in commerce and trade in Washington. At all times material, US LEGAL acted as a business, consortium, or other organization providing and/or facilitating court reporting services to numerous Washington litigants, including KENDALL. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. King County Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Washington Constitution, Article, and RCW.1.0 & RCW Venue is proper pursuant to RCW.1.0; RCW..(a) & (b); and CR. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

3 . US LEGAL acting agents and/or employees regularly engage in business transactions within this state. Defendant maintains a physical presence within this state. A substantial part of the events and tortious conduct giving rise to the claims in this lawsuit occurred within this state and county. Defendant availed itself of the benefits of the laws of Washington and its commercial market.. The claims of Plaintiff and the Class members are brought solely under state law causes of action and governed exclusively by Washington law. No claim exceeds $,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and thus raises no federal questions. BACKGROUND. Parties to a judicial action have the right to an impartial and independent court reporter, who has no bias, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the court proceedings being 1 reported. However, an increasing number of insurance companies are entering into undisclosed long-term agreements with court-reporting agencies which require their counsel to use a particular agency for any deposition they note. In return, insurance companies realize reduced fees. These contracts may call for expedited transcript delivery, deposition databases, and even discounted or free deposition summaries.. What many plaintiffs do not appreciate is that they may be getting gouged on transcript copy rates and other reporting services to account for the discounts afforded to institutional litigants. Exclusivity and bulk-purchasing agreements that result in unequal reporting services and terms are illegal in Washington. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., U.S. (0). CR (c). CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

4 . Washington found it necessary to regulate the practice of court reporting to protect the public safety and well-being and enacted the Court Reporting Practices Act ( CRPA ).. Certified reporters are officers of the court. They have ethical responsibilities to litigants and the bench. Professional ethics define the type of conduct litigants, courts, and attorneys have a right to expect from certified reporters. They include, inter alia, the obligation to fair and impartial toward all participants, in all aspects and avoiding unlawful agreements. They must guard against even the appearance of a conflict of interest, including undisclosed relationships with other parties to the transaction.. Compliance with the CRPA by certified reporters is mandatory. Under the CRPA a certified reporter can engage in unprofessional conduct in multiple ways: a. Violation of state statute or administrative rule regulating the profession; b. Dishonesty or corruption relating to the practice of court reporting or in the operation of the business, whether or not the act constitutes a crime; c. False, deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading conduct; d. Misrepresentation in any aspect of the conduct of the business or profession. 1. Certified court reporters ( CCR ) must offer arrangements on a case concerning court reporting services or fees to all parties on equal terms. 1 The equal terms rule applies to any agreement between the CCR, court reporting firm, consortium or other organization providing a court reporter and any party paying for court reporting services RCW.1.00 &.1. WCRA Resolution to Preserve Impartiality (January 1) RCW.1.() & RCW..(); WAC RCW.1.(1) & RCW..(1). RCW.1.() & RCW..(). RCW.1.() & RCW..(). 1 WAC 0-1-(1). CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

5 in the case, including any attorney, law firm, person or entity with a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. 1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Upon information and belief, Famers Insurance Exchange ( FIE ) and US LEGAL were parties to an exclusivity and/or bulk purchasing agreement that called for FIE to receive discounted court reporting services from US LEGAL. 1. BAKER was a litigant in Huckabee v. Hanson, (KCSC case No SEA). Hollenbeck, Lancaster, Miller, & Andrews ( HLMA ) defended Dennis Hanson, an FIE insured. Attorneys for HLMA are employees of FIE. Keane Law Offices represented Kendall Baker in the prosecution of her claims against Mr. Hanson. 1. On November, 1, HLMA deposed BAKER. FIE, through HLMA, retained US LEGAL to provide court reporting services for this deposition. 1. On December, 1, US LEGAL invoiced Keane Law Offices (invoice #1) $1.0. BAKER is liable for litigation costs advanced by her attorney, including deposition services. 1. Litigation costs reduce the net recovery to litigants. To ensure US LEGAL was complying with Washington s equal terms requirement BAKER requested US LEGAL provide copies of charges invoiced to FIE for the same depositions.. On January, 1, US LEGAL refused to provide documentation but offered written assurances to Keane Law Offices [T]hat Famers Insurance was billed for both depositions in question and your firm was billed at a lower rate. These assurances were deceptive and masked direct evidence of professional misconduct and predatory billing. 1 Superior Court Civil Rules (d). 1 RPC 1.(e)(1). CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

6 What follows are three examples of Plaintiff s allegations of professional misconduct against US LEGAL. EXAMPLE #1 Alhadenff v El Diablo, Inc SEA. US LEGAL invoice FIE # versus plaintiff #0: REPORTING SERVICE FIE KEANE LAW Exhibits Charges $0.0 per page $0.0 per page Handling Charges $1.00 $.00 End Line Discount <$1.00> N/A Pay After Date Escalation Charge N/A <$0.1> EXAMPLE # Huckabee v Hanson SEA (Deposition of Kendall Baker). US LEGAL invoice FIE #1 versus plaintiff #1: REPORTING SERVICE FIE KEANE LAW Handling Charges $1.00 $.00 End Line Discount $.00 N/A Pay After Date Escalation Charge N/A $1. EXAMPLE # Alhadenff v El Diablo, Inc SEA. US LEGAL invoice FIE #1 versus plaintiff #1: REPORTING SERVICE FIE KEANE LAW Handling Charges $1.00 $.00 End Line Discount $. N/A Pay After Date Escalation Charge N/A $. Exhibit Charges $0.0 per page $0.0 per page. US LEGAL invoices sent to plaintiffs display only full-balance charges and do not inform parties of the disparate billing practices. Many plaintiffs remain unaware they are CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

7 being illegally charged a higher fee for the exact same service. Consequently, business practices constituting professional misconduct and predatory billing go unnoticed. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. BAKER brings this case as a class action on behalf of a Class defined as: All persons and entities involved in litigation in Washington courts that received court reporting services from US LEGAL, its agents and/or employees, on unequal terms and/or unequal fees from February, 1 to present ( the Class ). 1. BAKER is a member of the Class.. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, and Defendant s legal representatives, assignees, and successors. Also excluded is the judge assigned to this case and any member of the judge s immediate family.. Upon information and belief, members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is impractical. The exact number and names of members of the Class are presently unknown, but can be readily ascertained through appropriate discovery. Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of affected members of the Class, whose names and addresses may be readily discovered upon examination of the records in the custody and control of Defendant. Moreover, the disposition of the claims of the Class in a single action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and the Court.. The central questions of law and fact are common to Plaintiff and Class members and are more fully laid out in BAKER s causes of action.. The nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of compensation for such injury is readily ascertainable and common to Plaintiff and Class members. 1 Washington Civil Rule CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

8 The claim of the representative Plaintiff is typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff received court reporting services from US LEGAL, its agents and/or employees, on unequal terms and/or fees in violation of Washington law and the Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff s claims, like the claims of the Class, arise out of the same common course of conduct by Defendant and are based on the same legal and remedial theories. 1. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.. Plaintiff has retained competent and capable attorneys who are experienced trial lawyers with significant experience in complex and class action litigation, including consumer class action litigation. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff, nor her counsel, has interests that are contrary to or that conflict with those of the proposed Class.. Defendant has engaged, and upon information and belief, continues to engage, in repeated deceptive and illegal conduct subjecting consumers to court reporting services on unequal terms, including but not limited to, unequal fees. The common issues arising from this conduct that affect Plaintiff and members of the Class predominate over any individualized issues. Adjudication of these common issues in a single action has important and desirable advantages of judicial economy and public policy.. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual damages as a result of Defendant s unlawful, professional misconduct. Absent a class action, however, most Class members would find the cost of litigating their claims prohibitive. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

9 Class treatment is superior to multiple individual suits or piecemeal litigation because it conserves judicial resources, promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication, provides a forum for small claimants, and deters illegal and deceptive practices.. Litigation of the claims should occur in this Court as all claims are brought under Washington law. There will be no significant difficulty in the management of this case as a class action. The Class members are readily identifiable from Defendant s records. CAUSES OF ACTION. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.. US LEGAL breached its ethical responsibility to BAKER and members of the Class by entering into agreements that would cause FIE attorneys, US LEGAL CCRs and other agents to violate the CRPA.. US LEGAL engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct that appears designed to prevent BAKER and members of the Class from discovering its contractual relationship with FIE and other insurers and large corporations. 0. US LEGAL, as alleged herein, engaged in dishonesty and corruption relating to the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of court reporting. 1. US LEGAL engaged in false, deceptive, fraudulent, and/or misleading conduct, as alleged herein, relating to the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of court reporting; including but not limited to, material deceptive and misleading representations and assurances pertaining to the illegal unequal billing practices for its reporting services.. US LEGAL failed to conduct its business in a manner consistent with the CRPA causing harm and damages to BAKER and other members of the Class, including but not limited CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

10 to, failing to provide court reporting services and associated fees to all parties on equal terms, harming BAKER and other members of the Class. VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.. At all times relevant, US LEGAL provided services directly and/or indirectly affecting the people of the state of Washington and engaged in unfair and deceptive actions and professional misconduct relating to court reporting services. 1. Upon information and belief, US LEGAL entered into exclusivity and/or bulk purchasing agreements that provided for deposition services on unequal terms in violation of Washington law.. BAKER and members of the Class are entitled to refund for moneys acquired by US LEGAL by means of prohibitive acts described herein.. BAKER and members of the Class were damaged by violation of the prohibitive conduct, as described herein, and are entitled to actual damages, together with costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees, and treble damages as the court deems appropriate.. The unfair and deceptive practices complained of herein are injurious to the public interest. RCW.1.00 contains specific legislative declaration of public interest impact in regulating court reporting services. Defendant s conduct has injured other persons, including members of the Class and will likely continue to injure.. US LEGAL s determinations as to how it priced its court reporting services; including the manner and terms the same were constituted, billed and collected, as well as, the 1 RCW..0; RCW.1.00 & RCW.1.; CR ; and WAC 0-1- RCW..00 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

11 determination to enter into exclusivity and/or bulk discounting agreements with insurers and large corporations are entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of court reporting. 0. All acts and/or omissions by Defendant complained of herein occurred within four years of the filing of this lawsuit. 1. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Class members, including Plaintiff, have suffered loss or injury, for which Defendant is liable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class, prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Certification of the proposed plaintiff Class; B. A determination that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying all Class members of its unlawful conduct; C. Appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the Class; D. Appointment of the undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class; E. A finding that Defendant s actions were deceptive, unfair and constitute professional misconduct in violation of RCW.1.; RCW ; CR ; and WAC 0-1-; G. An award to Plaintiff and the Class of compensatory damages, including actual damages and treble damages under RCW..00; H. Forfeiture and refund of fees charged and imposition of a fine not to exceed $,000 for each act of Defendant s professional misconduct under RCW..1; I. That this Court enters an order enjoining Defendant from further charging unequal fees and terms for depositions services within the state of Washington; J. Award Plaintiff and the Class attorneys fees and costs, as allowed by law; CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1

12 1 1 1 K. Award Plaintiffs and the Class prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; L. Permit Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint to conform to the evidence presented at trial; and M. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. DATED this th day of February, 1 /s/ R. Travis Jameson R. Travis Jameson, WSBA#1 Paul Stritmatter, WSBA# Brad Moore, WSBA#0 Co- Counsel for Plaintiffs KEANE LAW OFFICES T. Jeffrey Keane, WSBA# Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 1 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 SEATTLE, WA 1 Ph: -- FAX: --1