Posts by alexadmin alexadmin:

Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP, Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motions in Monday Hearing

Posted on: 25 Apr 2025

Following a hearing on Monday, April 21, 2025, Judge David Freeman denied Plaintiffs’ Petition for Further Relief as well as an earlier Motion for Release of Funds that had been pending for a few weeks. These decisions add to the losses sustained by the Plaintiffs in this case following the recent denial by the Supreme Court to take up the Plaintiffs’ case for Direct Review. At the hearing, counsel for 18 Paradise, MJ Management, and a representative for the Intervenors asked the court to bring this case to an end and to stop the continued filing of Post Trial Motions by the Plaintiffs. Bringing this case to an end in the trial court and giving the community the ability to start to heal was one of the arguments made by attorney, Ian Ducey, representing MJ Management at the hearing, and was a common theme among the other voices seeking denial of the Plaintiffs’ most recently filed post trial motion. The Court indicated that it was working with the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for those former Homestead homeowners, who had been ordered to deposit funds into the Registry of the Court, to be able to withdraw their money. The Plaintiffs’ earlier motion to have the Court send this money to Plaintiffs’ Counsel to supervise and distribute was denied. “With the denial of these two motions, we are hopeful that this is another step towards closure in this case,” said attorney Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management at trial. The Plaintiffs’ appeal is now before the Court of Appeals (Division I), in Seattle, where Plaintiffs have recently filed a Motion for Extension of Time, requesting additional time to file verbatim reports of proceedings, despite having filed the appeal in November 2024. Despite the passage of six months since the filing of their Notice of Appeal, in their motion, Plaintiffs stated “The complexity of the appeal and the time required to identify the issues for appeal delayed the initial aspects of the case.” The parties and Homestead homeowners now have to wait for the Plaintiffs’ appellate briefing on a long list of various orders and other decisions made by the trial court, including the Final Judgment and the Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim. The CPA claim being the only cause of action in the case for which Plaintiffs were seeking money damages and attorney’s fees. Following nearly 5 years of litigation in Whatcom County Superior Court and a trial in May 2024, the Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP case continues in the Court of Appeals, while the once thriving Golf Course located at Homestead remains closed and continues to deteriorate. The final outcome for the case and the community remains undecided. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management, O’Bryan, and Williams in this litigation through the trial and has continued to represent these parties in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs.

Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP, Supreme Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Request for Direct Review

Posted on: 04 Apr 2025

On April 2, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court entered its order, rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for Direct Review with the State’s highest court. The one-page order, signed by Chief Justice, Steven Gonzalez, ordered the case to be transferred to Division I Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs had primarily sought Direct Review by the Supreme Court of the trial court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim, which had to that point been the heart of the Plaintiffs’ case against various defendants, in a case that had languished in Whatcom County Superior Court for nearly 5 years. Despite this attempt, the Plaintiffs arguments were unpersuasive, and the Supreme Court sided with the City of Lynden and MJ Management’s arguments that these issues should be heard by the Court of Appeals instead. MJ Management had sought to have the entire case dismissed because of continued missed deadlines by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, but the Supreme Court decided to not dismiss the case in its entirety. “This was a significant decision by the court today, but for all practical matters, the Plaintiffs’ appeal has only just begun,” stated Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management at trial. “The Plaintiffs have essentially appealed every order that was entered in this case, and based on that, we expect their briefing to be massive[.]” said Possinger. These issues related to late court filings, and the Plaintiffs’ and their counsels’ failure to timely file their appeal of the Judgement for attorneys’ fees will likely be raised again in the Court of Appeals. The parties, and most importantly, the rest of the homeowners at Homestead, will now have to wait to see how this latest chapter in this case unfolds with no end in sight. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management, O’Bryan, and Williams in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs before the Washington State Supreme Court.  

Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP, Awaiting Decision on Motion to Dismiss in Washington State Supreme Court

Posted on: 13 Mar 2025

Following nearly 5 years of litigation in Whatcom County Superior Court and a trial in May 2024, the Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP case is now in front of the Washington State Supreme Court. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the State’s highest court in October 2024 and have further requested Direct Review, seeking to bypass the Court of Appeals to have the court review a slew of the trial court’s decisions on various grounds. Yet, the primary decision for which the Plaintiffs are seeking review is the trial court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim against 18 Paradise and MJ Management on March 21, 2024 (see document 1 below) in addition to the trial court’s order of March 29, 2024, dismissing William “Mick” O’Bryan and Josh Williams from the case (see document 1 below). In the lead up to the trial, the CPA claim had been the heart of the Plaintiffs’ class action suit. After this loss, the Plaintiffs sought CR 54(b) certification of this decision on April 4, 2024 so that they could seek an immediate appeal (see document 1 below). Without the CPA claim, the trial went forward in May 2024, but the Plaintiffs did not file an appeal on their certified court decision. After filing their Notice of Appeal, but before filing their Statement of Grounds for Direct Review, MJ Management filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal on the basis that the Statement of Grounds had been filed late (nearly 2 months according the appellate court rules); the appeal of the CR 54(b) certified CPA claim had not been timely appealed, and MJ Management’s judgment against Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s Counsel for unpaid attorney’s fees and costs had also not been appealed timely (see document 1 below). In addition to the Motion to Dismiss, both MJ Management and the City of Lynden filed objections to Plaintiffs’ request for the Washington State Supreme Court to take review of this issue instead of the Court of Appeals. The parties have fully briefed these issues Motion to Dismiss (see documents 2, 3, and 4 below), Statement of Grounds (see documents 5, 6, and 7 below) and a hearing date has been set for April 1, 2025. The issues for the court are for the court to decide whether to grant MJ Management’s Motion to Dismiss and also to determine if they will take direct review of the Plaintiffs’ appeal. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management, O’Bryan, and Williams in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs before the Washington State Supreme Court. = = = = = References: 1_Order Dismissing CPA Claim, Order Dismissing O’Bryan and Williams, CR 54(b) Certification, MJ Management Judgment for Fees 2_MJ Management Motion to Dismiss 3_Plaintiffs’ Answer to Motion to Dismiss 4_MJ Management Reply 5_Plaintiffs’ Statement of Grounds 6_MJ Management Objection to Statement of Grounds 7_City of Lynden Objection to Statement of Grounds

MJ Management Continues Collection Efforts Post-Hillius

Posted on: 01 Mar 2025

Following the trial court’s Final Orders entered on September 11, 2024, which determined that the correct amount of the Homestead Joint Maintenance Fee was $36.00 per homeowner per month, the court authorized both 18 Paradise and MJ Management to communicate with homeowners. Consistent with the court’s final orders, MJ Management began efforts in early 2025 to settle accounts with Homestead homeowners who still had outstanding balances owed to the company during the period it operated under its Management and Lease Agreement with 18 Paradise. MJ Management engaged Possinger Law Group to assist with collecting these amounts due. Beginning in January, MJ Management (through Possinger Law Group) sent out notices for payment to these homeowners to settle their accounts. Fortunately, this process has moved forward smoothly, with a significant number of homeowners either paying the amounts still owing or otherwise settling their accounts with MJ Management. There have been some homeowners that have refused to pay the amounts owing. For those homeowners that have stated their refusal to pay, MJ Management authorized Possinger Law Group to initiate collection actions. The first of these collection actions, MJ Management, LLC v. Hoag (WCSC# 25-2-00161-37) is currently moving forward in Whatcom County Superior Court. There has been some confusion created within the community by those actively encouraging homeowners not to settle their accounts on the basis that they could end up paying double to both 18 Paradise and MJ Management. To resolve any remaining confusion, amounts owing to MJ Management only continue through May 31, 2023. Amounts owing from June 1, 2023, and after are to be sent to 18 Paradise. Following years of litigation, MJ Management is looking forward to having this chapter wrapped up in the coming months. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs, which is now pending a Motion to Dismiss before the Washington Supreme Court.

The Role of Arbitration in International Commercial Disputes

Posted on: 24 Feb 2025

International commercial arbitration has become the preferred method for resolving cross-border business disputes, offering businesses a neutral and enforceable way to settle disputes across jurisdictions. As globalization continues to increase the number of cross-border transactions, understanding how arbitration works in this context is critical for companies engaged in international trade. Why Arbitration is Preferred in International Disputes International arbitration is often chosen over litigation for several key reasons, one of the most important being neutrality. In cross-border disputes, parties may come from different legal systems, and neither party wants to be at a disadvantage by litigating in the other’s home courts. Arbitration allows for the appointment of neutral arbitrators, and the parties can agree on a neutral forum and governing law. Another major advantage of international arbitration is the enforceability of awards. Arbitration awards are enforceable in more than 160 countries under the New York Convention, a multilateral treaty that facilitates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. This is a crucial benefit compared to court judgments, which may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions. For businesses, knowing that a favorable award can be enforced globally provides a significant degree of security when entering cross-border agreements. Moreover, international arbitration offers a degree of expertise and flexibility that national courts may not provide. Arbitrators can be selected based on their knowledge of the industry or the specific legal issues at hand, which can lead to more informed and commercially reasonable decisions. Additionally, parties can customize the arbitration process, agreeing on procedural rules, the language of arbitration, and even the location of the proceedings. This level of customization is particularly valuable in international disputes, where parties may come from vastly different legal, cultural, and commercial backgrounds. Key Institutions Governing International Arbitration Several leading arbitration institutions provide the framework and rules for international arbitration, with the most prominent being: • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC): Headquartered in Paris, the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration is one of the most widely used institutions for resolving international commercial disputes. It provides a set of arbitration rules and administers arbitrations, ensuring the process follows globally recognized standards. • London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA): Based in London, the LCIA is known for its efficient procedures and ability to handle complex disputes involving multiple legal systems. • International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR): The ICDR is the international arm of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and is frequently used in U.S.-related disputes. • Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC): SIAC has rapidly gained a reputation as a leading arbitration center in Asia, particularly for disputes involving parties from East Asia and Southeast Asia. These institutions not only provide standardized rules but also offer administrative support to ensure that arbitrations are conducted fairly and efficiently. The choice of institution can significantly impact the arbitration process, from the appointment of arbitrators to the enforcement of awards. Challenges in International Arbitration While international arbitration offers significant benefits, it is not without challenges. One major concern is the cost of the process. While arbitration is often perceived as less expensive than litigation, this is not always the case, particularly in international disputes. The involvement of multiple legal systems, extensive document production, and the selection of arbitrators with international expertise can drive up costs. Administrative fees from institutions like the ICC or LCIA can also add to the expense. Another issue is the fragmentation of legal systems. Although the New York Convention facilitates the enforcement of arbitration awards, differences in national legal systems can create complications. Some countries may be reluctant to enforce awards that conflict with local public policy or regulatory frameworks, and in certain cases, courts may intervene in arbitration proceedings more than expected, undermining the parties’ choice of arbitration as a neutral forum. Cultural differences can also pose challenges in international arbitration. Arbitrators and legal representatives from different cultural backgrounds may have different expectations regarding procedural fairness, communication styles, and decision-making processes. These differences can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or dissatisfaction with the outcome of the arbitration. Moreover, limited avenues for appeal can be a double-edged sword. While the finality of arbitration awards is often seen as an advantage due to the swift resolution of disputes, it also means that parties have fewer opportunities to challenge potentially flawed decisions. In international arbitration, where the stakes can be high, this lack of recourse can be particularly concerning for the party on the losing side. Recent Trends in International Arbitration Several trends have emerged in international arbitration as businesses and arbitration institutions seek to address some of the traditional challenges: • Increased Use of Technology: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of technology in arbitration, with virtual hearings and electronic filings becoming more common. These developments have made arbitration more accessible and reduced some of the logistical costs associated with in-person hearings. • Third-Party Funding: To manage the high costs of international arbitration, some parties are turning to third-party funding. In this model, an outside investor agrees to fund the arbitration in exchange for a share of any eventual award. This allows businesses, particularly smaller ones, to pursue legitimate claims without being burdened by the immediate costs of the arbitration process. • Greater Focus on Diversity: There has been a growing movement within the international arbitration community to promote diversity among arbitrators. Efforts to increase the representation of women, minorities, and arbitrators from various cultural backgrounds aim to ensure that arbitration panels reflect the diversity of the parties and disputes they handle. Conclusion International commercial arbitration continues to be the preferred method for resolving cross-border disputes, offering neutrality, enforceability, and flexibility that national courts often cannot provide. However, businesses must carefully weigh the potential costs and challenges, including the cultural and legal complexities inherent in international arbitration. By understanding the advantages and limitations, companies can better structure their arbitration agreements to protect their interests in an increasingly globalized economy. As arbitration evolves, embracing new trends and addressing its challenges will be critical to maintaining its status as the go-to mechanism for […]