Legal Opinion
Kim v. Pham
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided April 19, 1999No. 42558-7-IPublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.
— Mee Soon Kim sued Valorey Sue Pham for *441injuries allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Displeased with the outcome of mandatory arbitration proceedings, Pham served and filed a request for trial de novo but did not file written proof of service within the 20-day period set forth in Mandatory Arbitration Rule (MAR) 7.1(a). Kim moved to strike the request for trial de novo. The trial court granted Kim’s motion and entered judgment on the arbitration award. Because failure to file written proof of service per MAR 7.1(a) is fatal to a request for trial de novo, we affirm. Kim did not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Robinson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Westberg v. All-Purpose Structures, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1997
- Westberg v. All-Purpose Structures Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Wiley v. RehakWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Wiley v. RehakWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Kim v. PhamCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Corey v. Pierce CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- Carpenter v. ElwayCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.