Case v. Dundom
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
Bridgewater, J. —
Bary Dundom appeals the trial court’s default judgment against him which quieted title to certain real property in Ted Case. Dundom claims that the default award is invalid because Case did not comply with CR 26(i) before moving for discovery sanctions. We hold that, without the certification described in CR 26(i), a trial court does not have authority to entertain a motion to compel discovery. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and vacate the default order.
This dispute arises from a real estate deal that never closed. The issues on appeal concern several discovery…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. GreenwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Bishop v. MicheWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Bishop v. MicheWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Scannell v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Apostolis v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Clarke v. STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICECourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Clarke v. Office of the Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Amy v. KMART OF WASHINGTON LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Attorney General's Office v. Utilities & Transportation CommissionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- Rieger v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.