Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Trans Ocean Seafoods, Inc.

RESPONSE

W.D. Wash.December 11, 2017

ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 1 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, SERAPIA MATAMOROS PEREA et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, vs. TRANS OCEAN SEAFOODS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN NOTED: DECEMBER 15, 2017 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff-Intervenors seek an order from this Court quashing a valid lien asserted by the law firm that is the only entity in this case to win a judgment on behalf of its client. By the time that Rocke Law Group’s attorneys were permitted to withdraw, a motion for a bill of costs totaling nearly $21,000 was still pending in front of this Court and a relatively favorable settlement for Trans Ocean on the few surviving claims was certain. The eventual settlement specifically addressed finality for all issues including costs and attorney’s fees. Trans Ocean bargained away the monetary interest regarding reimbursement of costs in reaching the eventual settlement. That interest was tantamount to sums in Trans Ocean’s possession that are due to the lienholder prior to the disbursement of funds. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 2 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 II. FACTS RELEVANT TO RESPONSE This case was adjudicated by way of a jury trial which ended in a partial verdict favorable to Defendant Trans Ocean Seafoods (“TOS”), delivered on April 24. 2017. This Court entered judgments in favor of TOS and against all Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs-Intervenors1. The only two exceptions to complete victory in favor of TOS were two of the issues2, which were the subject of a hung-jury-based mistrial.3 The judgments against plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors were as follows: Against Plaintiff EEOC: • Retaliation relief for Serapia Matamoros under Federal Law. • Retaliation relief for Elena Perea Olea under Federal Law. • Retaliation relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under Federal Law. • Constructive Discharge relief for Maricela Dominguez under Federal Law. • Sexual Harassment relief for Elena Perea Olea under Federal Law. • Sexual Harassment relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under Federal Law. Against the Plaintiffs-Intervenors: • Retaliation relief for Serapia Matamoros under Federal Law. • Retaliation relief for Serapia Matamoros under State Law. • Retaliation relief for Elena Perea Olea under Federal Law. • Retaliation relief for Elena Perea Olea under State Law. • Retaliation relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under Federal Law. • Retaliation relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under State Law. 1 See Dkt. #221. 2 Plaintiff Serapia Matamoros’s State and Federal law claims for Sexual Harassment. 3 Id. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 3 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • Sexual Harassment relief for Elena Perea Olea under Federal Law. • Sexual Harassment relief for Elena Perea Olea under State Law. • Sexual Harassment relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under Federal Law. • Sexual Harassment relief for Celia Sanchez Perea under State Law. Id.4 No judgments were entered against TOS in this matter. Based on the Court’s ruling granting a new trial to Plaintiffs-Intervenors Celia Sanchez Perea and Elena Perea Olea only, all but the four judgments underlined above still stand.5 The EEOC never challenged the verdict or subsequent judgments against them. The EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenor Serapia Matamoros moved jointly for a new trial on her issues alone, which were the subject of the hung-jury mistrial.6 Notably, the EEOC did not join in Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sanchez Perea and Perea Olea’s subsequent motion for a new trial on their federal and state claims.7 Consequently, no judgments against the EEOC, as reflected in this Court’s original Judgment, have been challenged. As the prevailing party, TOS moved for a Bill of Costs, the final version being submitted on July 7, 2017.8 These costs totaled $20,670.04. The Court referred authority to decide the Motion for a Bill of Costs to Deputy in Charge Joe Whiteley.9 The decision on TOS’s Motion remains outstanding.10 4 The underlined counts were eventually reversed by this Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Motion for a New Trial. 5 See Dkt. #234 and #244. 6 See Dkt. #229. 7 See Dkt. # 234. 8 See Dkt. #232. 9 See May 12, 2017 Court docket entry. 10 Dec. of Bartels. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 4 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 As referenced above, Rocke Law Group (“RLG”) moved to withdraw as counsel for TOS on May 11, 2017.11 TOS did not challenge the motion, but the EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors joined in opposition to that motion.12 The parties primarily relied on the argument that, without RLG remaining as counsel, all plaintiff parties would be prejudiced.13 The Court granted leave for RLG’s attorneys to withdraw as counsel after the conclusion of post-trial motions practice.14 On September 14, 2017, RLG filed a notice of attorney lien pursuant to Chapter 60.40 RCW.15 After RLG’s attorneys withdrew, TOS obtained new counsel and attended a settlement conference on October 17, 2017.16 Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler presided. Prior to the settlement conference, RLG specifically informed TOS’s new counsel of the outstanding Motion for a Bill of Costs that was separate from the already-decided Motion for Attorney’s Fees.17 After a conference on the issue, Judge Theiler ruled that RLG would not be in attendance at the settlement conference.18 On November 8, 2017, the parties submitted a proposed Consent Decree for the Court’s consideration.19 The consent decree specifically included, as part of the scope of settlement, “all claims by…Trans Ocean for attorney fees and costs.”20 This proposal was approved by this Court with no changes as a full and final settlement of the action.21 11 See Dkt. #182. 12 See Dkt. #190. 13 Id. 14 See Dkt. #228. 15 See Dkt. #252. 16 See Dkt. #253 and 257. 17 Dec. of Bartels 18 Dec. of Bartels 19 See Dkt. #259. 20 Id at paragraph 3.1. 21 See Dkt. #263. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 4 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 5 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 III. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT Defendant TOS was the clear prevailing party in all judgments entered by this Court. This Court entered at least one judgment against every plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor party to this litigation, and each judgment was also “in favor” of TOS. As the prevailing party, TOS was entitled to costs, although the Court had not yet decided that issue when the parties reached settlement. At the conclusion of its representation of Defendant TOS, RLG properly filed a notice of attorney lien pursuant to Chapter 60.40 RCW. This lien applied prospectively to any recovery TOS may have been entitled to arising out of the litigation. At the time of the lien, TOS had an active motion for costs due to its status as the prevailing party.22 The parties’ settlement agreement, as entered by this Court, was a net of $75,000 in favor of three plaintiff-intervenors. However, the settlement agreement expressly included Defendant TOS’s abandonment of the costs of a prevailing party to which it was entitled. In short, the settlement was for (among other non-monetary consideration) $75,000 plus forgiveness of a specific monetary debt. The settlement was effectively no different than TOS conveying $95,670.04 and the plaintiff parties conveying $20,670.04. If that had been the procedure, there would have been no question that RLG would have been entitled to the $20,670.04 conveyed to TOS pursuant to the lien. RLG’s entitlement to the value of the amount of the cost bill is no different simply because the parties settled the matter with one payment instead of exchanging payments. This Court should not permit the conveyance of the $75,000 in settlement funds unless TOS also conveys to RLG the value it received from the plaintiff parties as part of the settlement agreement. 22 And, if the case proceeded to a retrial, TOS could have also sought reimbursement of its attorney’s fees. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 5 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 6 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. RLG’s Lien Properly Attaches to Any Proceeds Received by TOS Under the Settlement Agreement. 1. The lien was properly filed, is permissible, and remains active. Washington State the law permits any lawyer representing a client to file a lien for his or her compensation: • Upon money in the hands of the adverse party [in an action regarding which the claimant attorney was employed], from the time that notice of the lien was issued. RCW 60.40.010(c); • Upon an action (including mediation), and its proceeds after the commencement thereof to the extent of the value of any services performed by the attorney in the action, or if the services were rendered under a special agreement, for the sum due under such agreement. RCW 60.40.010(d); and • Upon a judgment to the extent of the value of any services performed by the attorney in the action, or if the services were rendered under a special agreement, for the sum due under such agreement, from the time of filing notice of such lien or claim with the clerk of the court in which such judgment is entered, which notice must be filed with the papers in the action in which such judgment was rendered, and an entry made in the execution docket, showing name of claimant, amount claimed and date of filing notice. RCW 60.40.010(e). Further, a lien created under Section 101(d), above, is not affected by settlement between the parties until the lien has been satisfied in full. RCW 60.40.010(e)(4). There is no dispute that RLG, under any of the above analyses, timely filed its Notice of Attorney Lien, and effected service on all parties. There is also no dispute that the lien reflects value of services performed in the subject action that exceeds the amount of Defendant TOS’s Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 6 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 7 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 bill of costs.23 There is no dispute that zero funds have been paid to RLG in satisfaction of the lien. As such, the lien is proper, served, filed, and active. The dispute arises regarding the application, attachment, and effect of this active lien. 2. RLG obtained judgments in this matter in favor of TOS and against all opposing parties. The moving parties spend a considerable portion of their opening brief attempting to argue that a monetary judgment in favor of TOS is required to assert a lien and that TOS did not obtain a favorable judgment in this case. Their argument is not consistent with the record in this case or the laws of the State of Washington. The moving parties assert several times that the attorney lien statute requires that a successful judgment be obtained for the client against the adverse party.24 To support their argument, the movants cite two Washington cases, Wilson25 and Suleiman, both of which interpret a previous iteration of RCW 60.40.010 to require a favorable judgment be obtained before a lien is effective under subsections .010(3) or .010(4). These opinions are no longer good law, as recognized by Ferguson Firm.26 That case held “The previous version of the statute, in effect when Wilson and Suleiman were decided, required attorneys to obtain a monetary judgment in favor of their clients. Now, however, the amended statute requires only that [the client] obtained ‘proceeds’ in the action.” Id. An actual monetary amount reduced to a 23 The moving parties did argue that not all of the value of the lien is related to the present cause of action and that some is related to a Skagit Superior Court action. Ex. B to Dec. of Welch, p. 10. Even taken as true, the amount attributed to the present cause in that document is more than double the amount of the settlement and the amount of the cost bill, combined. There is no meaningful challenge that the amounts disputed here are covered by the lien. 24 Moving parties’ opening brief at 5-6. 25 Wilson v. Henkle, 45 Wn. App. 162, 724 P.2d 1069 (1986); Suleiman v. Cantino, 33 Wn. App. 602, 656 P.2d 1122(1983). 26 Ferguson Firm, PLLC v. Teller and Assocs., 178 Wn. App. 622, 632, 316 P.3d 509, 514 (2013). Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 7 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 8 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 judgment is not required, contrary to the moving parties’ assertions. All that is required is that “proceeds” be “received” by the client. As discussed below, TOS received proceeds in this case. Even if a favorable judgment were required for an attorney lien to be effective, RLG did obtain favorable judgments in favor of TOS and against all other parties. On June 14, 2017, after considering the parties briefing, this Court entered judgment “in favor of Defendant Trans Ocean Seafoods, Inc.” and, in itemized form, “against” the EEOC, Serapia Matamoros, Elena Perea Olea, and Celia Sanchez Perea as described in the facts section above. In total, this Court entered judgment “in favor of” TOS and “against” every other party to this action on twelve different causes.27 At no time in this case has judgment been entered against TOS. Despite this very one-sided outcome, the moving parties repeatedly claim that TOS did not obtain any judgments in its favor in this matter. That assertion is in direct conflict with the record and should be disregarded. 3. Trans Ocean Seafoods received proceeds in this action from the opposing parties. Ferguson Firm recognizes that RCW 60.40.010(5) dictates that an attorney lien can be applied to any “proceeds” that are “received” by the former client in a matter.28 “Proceeds” are “any monetary sum” that is received in the action. Id. Further, proceeds “received” is not limited to proceeds “possessed” by the client.29 In other words, amounts due to the former client are under the scope of the lien, even if those funds have not yet changed hands. In this matter, the bill of costs due to TOS, for which there was value applied, are proceeds received by TOS. 27 Originally, there were judgments on 16 claims in favor of TOS, but this Court has since granted retrial on four of those claims. 28 Moving parties’ Opening Brief at 8; Ferguson Firm at 632. 29 Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg. v. Linth, 195 Wn. App. 10, 16, 380 P.3d 565, 569-70 (2016) Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 8 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 9 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In this case, TOS was due $20,670.04 in costs as the prevailing party. $20,670.04 is a monetary sum. That monetary sum was received, albeit not possessed, by TOS in the underlying action as a result of the judgments obtained in its favor and against all other parties. Instead of taking actual possession of the sum due to it, TOS expressly bargained away its right to that sum as part of a monetary settlement of the claim. Effectively, a settlement of all claims for $75,000 to the plaintiff parties is no different than a settlement where the plaintiff parties pay $20,670.04 to TOS and TOS pays $95,670.04 to plaintiff parties. If the parties employed the latter procedure to complete settlement, there would be no question that the $20,670.04 would be subject to the lien and payable directly to RLG. TOS received the same value of the favorable judgments RLG obtained in its favor under the $75,000 “net value” settlement as it would have if the parties had exchanged checks. As such, as far as RCW 60.40.010(c)-(e) are concerned, TOS “received” “proceeds” in this matter no differently than if it had received cash in hand. 4. If necessary, this Court can determine the sum based on briefing already in the court file. The moving parties may attempt to argue that the actual value of the costs due to TOS is unknown at this time, so no specific monetary value can be assigned to it. This is not the case, however. At the time that the parties gave the claim value by expressly attaching it to a monetary settlement, the amount of the cost bill was $20,670.04. That should be the value of “proceeds” this Court assigns to what was exchanged. Even if this Court is reluctant to assign that value to the cost bill, the cost bill has been submitted to this Court, as have all papers in support and opposition to it. Even in the unlikely event that this Court determines the $20,670.04 value of the pending cost bill is incorrect, it can decide the appropriate amount based on the parties’ submissions. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 9 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 10 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 B. The RCW 60.40.010(1)(c) lien should be enforced upon the adverse parties to TOS. RLG served a copy of its lien upon all parties in this action, including those adverse to TOS. Upon such service, RLG had a lien upon money in the hands of the adverse parties in this action. RCW 60.40.010(1)(c). The moving parties are correct that .010(c) does not attach the lien to proceeds TOS pays to the moving parties. That section does, however, attach to any monetary sum in the hands of the adverse parties that is due to TOS as a result of the action. In this case, the amount of money owed to TOS pursuant to TOS’s bill of costs was, at the time of the lien, money in the hands of Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors. When the settlement was reached, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors conveyed the value of that cost bill upon TOS when they accepted TOS’s waiver of recovery of costs as part of the settlement agreement. If the bill of costs had no value, it would not have been part of the monetary settlement agreement. Once the value was made part of the settlement agreement, it was received by TOS, even if the receipt was not in the form of cash or a check. RCW 60.40.010(5) is instructive on this issue: For the purposes of this section, "proceeds" means any monetary sum received in the action. Once proceeds come into the possession of a client, such as through payment by an opposing party or another person or by distribution from the attorney's trust account or registry of the court, the term "proceeds" is limited to identifiable cash proceeds determined in accordance with RCW 62A.9A- 315(b)(2). The attorney's lien continues in such identifiable cash proceeds, subject to the rights of a secured party under RCW 62A.9A-327. RCW 60.40.010(5). Once the adverse parties transferred that value to TOS as part of the global settlement, those proceeds were received, albeit commingled with the remainder of the terms of the settlement. The lien statute directs the analysis to “identifiable cash proceeds” as determined in accordance with RCW 62A.9A-315(b)(2). In this case, the commingled proceeds are Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 10 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 11 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 identifiable: the value of the cost bill. The statute is further instructive regarding “commingled proceeds”: Secured party's rights on disposition of collateral and in proceeds. (b) When commingled proceeds identifiable. Proceeds that are commingled with other property are identifiable proceeds: (2) If the proceeds are not goods, to the extent that the secured party identifies the proceeds by a method of tracing, including application of equitable principles, that is permitted under law other than this Article with respect to commingled property of the type involved. RCW 62A.9A-315(b)(2)(emphasis added). The application of equitable principles allows for the Court to assign the full value of the cost bill as “identifiable cash proceeds.” RLG may rely on equitable principles for the tracing and identification of the conveyed value of the cost bill. RLG earned judgments for its client against the adverse parties. It then fully identified and argued for costs due to TOS as the prevailing party. RLG withdrew as counsel, then timely filed and served a lien against any proceeds received by TOS as a result of the action. The parties assigned value to the costs owed to TOS by expressly including those costs in the settlement. In short, the parties exchanged something of identifiable monetary value as part of the settlement despite a valid lien asserting rights to any value conveyed upon TOS. The parties owe to RLG the value of what was conveyed to TOS, as that value was originally “money in the hands” of the “adverse parties.” As a result, those parties should be responsible for conveying that value to RLG. Alternatively, if this Court believes that TOS has already received the full monetary benefit conveyed to it by the adverse parties, then TOS is in current possession of the money that was “in the hands of the adverse parties” at the time of the lien. In this case, TOS should be responsible for providing the value of the cost bill to RLG as part of the settlement disposition. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 11 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 12 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C. If the Court determines the lien is more appropriately addressed under Section .010(1)(d), TOS should be required to pay $20,670.04 to RLG at the same time it pays the $75,000 settlement. Whether TOS owes the value of the cost bill to RLG under Section .010(1)(d) requires the same analyses under RCW 60.40.010(5) and RCW 62A.9A-315 above. Section .101(1)(d) dictates that the lien attaches to an action, even one resolved by mediation, and its “proceeds” after the commencement thereof, valued as the sum due under the service agreement. The analysis here is far simpler than above. TOS owes RLG amounts under the lien for services performed pursuant to a legal services agreement. RLG obtained something of identifiable monetary value for TOS in the action. TOS then benefitted from that value, owed to it by the adverse parties, and expressly bargained with it to reach a settlement in this case. Per the .010(5) analysis above, the value obtained is identifiable and traceable. Equity demands that TOS cannot be served with a lien, then later obtain identifiable monetary value directly from the adverse party, and “keep” that value by obtaining a more favorable settlement. The $20,670.04 in value TOS obtained by “giving it back” to the adverse parties was never TOS’s to give. That value was captured by the filed and served lien. Before the parties can finalize their monetary settlement arrangement, TOS should have to provide the value of the cost bill to RLG. The principles of equity do not allow for parties to simply agree to forgive sizable monetary debts to avoid a timely and properly served lien. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, this Court should DENY the moving parties’ Motion to Quash the attorney fee lien. The Court should further order that before the settlement can be finalized, the value of Cost Bill should be provided to Rocke Law Group. Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 12 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 13 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DATED this 11th day of December, 2017. ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC s/ Jeremy S. Bartels ____________________ Jeremy S. Bartels, WSBA #36824 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 652-8670 Fax: (206) 452-5895 Email: jeremy@rockelaw.com Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 13 of 14 ROCKE | LAW Group, PLLC RESPONSE TO MOTION TO 101 Yesler Way, Suite 603 QUASH ATTORNEY LIEN Seattle, WA 98104 Page 14 (206) 652-8670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I sent a copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Quash Attorney Lien to the following in the manner indicated: Via ECF to: Carmen Flores Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Ave, Ste 400 Seattle, WA 981041061 carmen.flores@eeoc.gov Teri L. Healy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Ave, Ste 400 Seattle, WA 981041061 teri.healy@eeoc.gov Gregory E. Jackson Freimund Jackson & Tardif, PLLC 701 5th Ave, Suite 3545 Seattle, WA 98104 gregj@fjtlaw.com Amee J. Tilger Freimund Jackson & Tardif, PLLC 701 5th Ave, Suite 3545 Seattle, WA 98104 ameet@fjtlaw.com Alyson Dimmitt Gnam Northwest Justice Project 300 Okanogan Ave, Ste 3a Wenatchee, WA 98801 alysond@nwjustice.org Mary Ellen Welch Northwest Justice Project 1814 Cornwall Bellingham, WA 98225 maryw@nwjustice.org John R. Nicholson Freimund Jackson & Tardif, PLLC 701 5th Ave, Suite 3545 Seattle, WA 98104 johnn@fjtlaw.com on today’s date. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief. Signed and DATED this 11th day of December, 2017, in Seattle, Washington. s/ Emily Krueger ______________________ Emily Krueger, Legal Assistant Case 2:15-cv-01563-RAJ Document 264 Filed 12/11/17 Page 14 of 14