Opposition Brief — Halvorsen v. Ferguson

Supreme Court, U.S,

a3) 2:

JAN 20 1988

No. 87-1109

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR,

IN THE CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Petitioner,

Vv.

FERGUSON & BURDELL, A FIRM

CONSISTING OF THE PARTNERS OF

WILLIAM H. FERGUSON, WILLIAM

WESSELHOEFT, DONALD MCL.

DAVIDSON, EDWARD HILPERT, JR.,

THOMAS J. GREENAN, HENRY W.

DEAN, WILLIAM B. MOORE, C. DAVID

SHEPPARD, W.J. THOMAS FERGUSON,

JAMES E. HURT, WILLIAM D.

STITES, BRUCE P. BABBIT, E.P.

SWAIN,JR., CHRISTOPHER KANE, and

HENRY C. JAMES; and WILLIAM

WESSELHOEFT and MARGARET

WESSELHOEFT and THEIR MARITAL

COMMUNITY,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

DAVID F. ROSS

1111 Third Ave. Of Karr, Tuttle, Koch,

Suite 2500 Campbell, Mawer, Morrow

Seattle, WA 98101 & Sax, &.S8.,

(206) 223-1313 Attorneys for

Respondents

aBCD Legai Printers. Seattie. Washington

Questions Presented for Review

(1) Where the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington at

Seattle dismissed petitioner's complaint for

legal malpractice because it had already

been concluded adversely to her in previous

state and federal court actions and the

District Court imposed sanctions against her

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, was the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit correct in refusing

petitioner's Notice of Appeal?

(2) Should the Court impose’~ sanctions

against petitioner pursuant to Rule 49.2 and

26 U.S.C. § 1912 for filing a frivoious

appeal?

es ae

Parties to This Proceeding

Petitioner is Mary Catherine Halvorsen.

Respondents are the law firm of Ferguson &

Burdell and the partners of the firm and

their marital communities.

- ili -

Table of Contents

Questions Presented for

Review ..

S28 6¢ ©2428 @. 62 8-6 €.6.0 062 O0¢ 8 8 86688 @

Parties to the Proceedings

Bee gee SP

Teme GL AMEMOTiCLes .icciccces

A. OPINION OF COURTS BELOW

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDIC-

TIONAL GROUNDS ...........

Cc. STATUTES AT ISSUE IN THE

CASE

ns 2S 8 @€ 228 @€.9 8646 68 86.0666 6 806 6

D. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

E. REASONS WHY A WRIT SHOULD

NOT BE ALLOWED ...........

(1)

(2)

(3)

Appendix

Halvorsen Failed to

State a Claim Below

The Eighth Circuit

Properly Refused

Halvorsen's Notice of

re

Halvorsen's Petition

Is Frivolous and

Sanctions Should be

Imposed Against Her

N

10

10

13

18

- iv -

Table of Authorities

Page

Table of Cases

Balise v. Underwood, 62 Wn.2d

195, 381 P.2d 966 (1963) ...... 12

Clark v. State of Florida,

U.S. s Bs See , 90

L. Bd. 24 330 (1986) .cseccccces 1l

Clark v. Watchie, 513 F.2d 994

(9th Cir. 1975), cert. den.,

423 U.S. 641, 96 Ss CG. 7a, 46

Le BG. 24 6O (1978) <ccsécucscs 20

Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.,

775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985)-. 18

Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wn.2d

254, 704 P.2d 600 (1985) ...... ll

Halvorsen v. Ferguson, 46 Wn.

App. 708, 735 P.2d 675 (1986) . 7-8, 11

Halvorsen v. State of Washing-

ton, (W.D. Wash. No. C82-1169),

aff'd, F.2d (9th Cir.

1984) (Cause No. 3-3828) ..... Si Fs

19

Nave v. City of Seattle, 68

Wn.2d 721, 415 P.2d 93 (1966),

appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 450,

Sf BS. Ct. $14, 17: B.. 26 $13

(1967), rehearing den., 386

u.$. 929, 87 S. Ct. 853, 17

tes BG. 2G GOD (1967) cc csacacas 13

Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349

U.S. 29, 19 3. Ce. 544, 99

L. Ed. 2d 789 (1955) ....e-eee-

Peters v. Simmons, 87 Wn.2d

400, 552 P.2d 1053 (1976) .....

Preston v. Raese, 335 F.2d 827

(4EM CEE. L5GE) ccccccccccvcces

Roofing & Sheet Metal Services,

Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns,

Inc., 689 F.2d 982 (11th Cir.

1962). ccccccccccscccccccecceces

Williams v. State of Washing-

ton, 554 F.2d 369 (9th Cir.

Constitutional Provisions

G8. Cee. « Gs SE kk he ec k-2

C. 5. fee. , mes © saat wea

‘KR fe. a - Aaet ae

Wash. Const., art. 1, sec. 21

Statutes

10 Boe 6 OS hee Tae

Page

14

1l

14

14

1l

Pi MSO os ak eonas

8 TR ae ae rg eaeangee

er ee. OS BOR cc ceeeeckees

ctl, & LPM vcdes ax paw ba

Rules and Regulations

Supreme Court Rule 17 .........

Supreme Court Rule 49.2 .......

tse -a GaGe Ps WA seccatseadean

Other Authorities

Note, "Abusive Pro Se Plain-

tiffs in Federal Courts: Pro-

posals for Judicial Control,"

18 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 93

EE? S605 660s 6960666060666 06%

A. OPINION OF COURTS BELOW

The United States District Court for

the Western District of Washington dis-

missed petitioner's complaint for legal

malpractice against respondents because

the issues had already been litigated in

the Washington courts and the results were

adverse to petitioner. The District Court

also imposed sanctions against petitioner

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ll. See,

Appendix.

Thereafter, petitioner attempted to

file a Notice of Appeal in the United

States District Court in Seattle to the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit. The District Court Clerk

refused to process such a Notice and

Halvorsen undertook to do so herself. The

Clerk of the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals refused the Notice because the

Court did not have jurisdiction to hear

appeals from outside of that Circuit.

See, Appendix.

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS

The District Court judgment at issue

here was entered on September 9, 1987.

The original judgment had been entered on

August 5, 1987. Petitioner's original

Notice of Appeal was dated September 1,

1987. Various letters between Halvorsen

and the Clerks of the District Court and

the Eighth Circuit ensued. The letter of

the Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declining

to process the appeal was dated Septem-

ber 10, 1987.

Petitioner filed an amended Notice of

Appeal and a Notice of Appeal to this

Court dated September 21, 1987. Her Peti-

tion for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of

Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was placed

in the mail on November 20, 1987. After

correspondence between the Clerk of this

Court and petitioner, Halvorsen determined

that she would file a petition for a writ

of mandamus.

Petitioner has failed to establish

this Court's jurisdiction over this case.

Halvorsen alleges that jurisdiction is

conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C.

§ 33i and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This is

incorrect. 28 U.S.C. § 331 pertains to

the Judicial Conference of the United

States and confers no special extraterri-

torial jurisdiction on the Circuit Courts

of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 pertains to

removal of actions and again confers no

special extraterritorial jurisdiction on

the circuits. Petitioner has failed to

demonstrate appropriate jurisdictional

grounds for review.

C.

to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts

STATUTES AT ISSUE IN THE CASE

28 U-S.C. § 1294 states with respect

of Appeals:

28 U.S.C. § 1404 states with respect to

Except as provided in sec-

tions 1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295

of this title, appeals from

reviewable decisions of the

district and territorial courts

shall be taken to the courts of

appeals as follows:

(1) From a district court

of the United States to the

court of appeals for the circuit

embracing the district;

the transfer of cases:

(a) For the convenience of

parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district

court may transfer any civil

action to any other district or

division where it might have

been brought.

As to frivolous appeals, Rule

states:

When an appeal or petition for

writ of certiorari is frivolous,

the Court may award the appellee

Or the respondent appropriate

damages.

49.

Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1912 states:

Where a judgment is affirmed by

the Supreme Court or a court of

appeals, the court in its dis-

cretion may adjudge to the pre-

vailing party just damages for

his delay, and single or double

costs.

D. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The present federal court action is

petitioner's third attempt to sue _ the

Seattle law firm of Ferguson & Burdell for

alleged legal malpractice. Ferguson &

Burdell were originally retained to repre-

sent Halvorsen in her divorce proceedings

which culminated in a three-week trial in

December, 1977. At the conclusion of the

trial, presided over by the Honorable Jack

Scholfield, the court made an extensive

oral ruling which was subsequently reduced

to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law. Ferguson & Burdell represented

Halvorsen on a Motion for Reconsideration

and also commenced her appeal. There-

after, Halvorsen terminated Ferguson &

Burdell as her counsel and selected attor-

ney Phillip Malone to appeal her divorce

through Division I of the Court of

Appeals, the Washington Supreme Court and

this Court. The trial court's decision

was affirmed at each stage of the appeal.

In October, 1980, acting pro se,

petitioner Halvorsen brought a state court

action against Ferguson & Burdell, alleg-

ing breach of contract and legal malprac-

tice. In March, 1983, attorney Jerry

Schumm became counsel of record _ for

Halvorsen. By a letter dated April 22,

1983, the initial eight theories of recov-

ery for Halvorsen against Ferguson &

Burdell were narrowed to three. There-

after, Ferguson & Burdell moved for sum-

mary judgment. The motion was heard by

the Honorable Robert H. Peterson, a visit-

ing judge from Pierce County. At the time

of judgment on the motion, counsel for

Halvorsen stipulated on the record that

two more issues outlined in his April 22,

1983 letter were not being pursued and

could thereafter be dismissed. After a

lengthy review of the entire record over

two days, and oral argument by the par-

ties, Judge Peterson granted the motion

for summary judgment and entered an Order

Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment. Halvorsen moved for reconsid-

eration, but the motion for reconsidera-

tion was denied. The Washington Court of

Appeals, Division I, affirmed the summary

judgment in each and every respect, 46 Wn.

App. 708, 735 P.2d 675 (1986). Halvorsen

moved for reconsideration, which was

denied, and then petitioned the Washington

Supreme Court for review. In her Petition

for Review, Halvorsen specifically alleged

that the case involved a significant ques-

tion of law under the Washington State

Constitution in that Halvorsen was denied

her right to a trial by jury as guaranteed

under Article I, paragraph 21 of the Wash-

ington State Constitution because the case

had been resolved by summary judgment.

The Supreme Court of Washington denied

review at 108 Wn.2d 1008 (1987).

In 1982, Halvorsen filed a complaint

in the United States District Court for

the Western District of Washington,

Halvorsen v. State of Washington, (Cause

No. C82-1169) against Ferguson & Burdell

for legal malpractice, and against the

State of Washington, Judge Jack P.

Scholfield, Justices Reed, Petrich and

Pearson of the Washington State Court of

Appeals, Division II, and her opposing

counsel, Robert Frederick, for violation

of her Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-

ment rights. The District Court dismissed

the action for failure to state a claim,

and Halvorsen appealed to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit in Cause No. 83-3828. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed the District Court dis-

missal of Halvorsen's complaint and

imposed sanctions against her for pursuing

a frivolous appeal.

In April, 1987, Halvorsen filed yet

another federal court action against

Ferguson & Burdell for legal malpractice,

an action virtually identical in every

respect to her prior state court action

filed in October, 1980 and her federal

court action filed in October, 1982. In

the present action, Halvorsen further

purported to raise a federal constitu-

tional issue by arguing that she was

allegedly deprived of her right to trial

by jury as a result of the summary judg-

ment. The United States District Court

>

for the Western District of Washington

dismissed Halvorsen's complaint and

imposed sanctions against her. She sought

review by the Eighth Circuit rather than

the Ninth Circuit, generally alleging that

the Ninth Circuit discriminated against

women. The Eighth Circuit Clerk refused

her Notice of Appeal. She now seeks a

writ of mandamus to the Eighth Circuit

from this Court.

E. REASONS WHY A WRIT SHOULD NOT BE

ALLOWED

A writ of mandamus’ should not be

allowed in this case and sanctions should

be imposed by this Court against Halvorsen

for filing a frivolous petition.

(1) Halvorsen Failed to State a Claim

Below

From a substantive standpoint, the

District Court was correct in dismissing

Halvorsen's complaint. Halvorsen failed

to establish a prima facie case of legal

|

- ll -

- malpractice against Ferguson & Burdell,

Daugert v. Pappas, 104 Wn.2d 254, 704 P.2d

600 (1985); Halvorsen v. Ferguson, 46 Wn.

App. 708, 735 P.2d 675 (1986), rev. den.,

108 Wn.2d 1008 (1987).

All of Halvorsen's claims have pre-

viously been adjudicated against her. She

cannot, under the doctrine of res judi-

cata, re-litigate them in the federal

courts. See, e.g., Williams v. State of

Washington, 554 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1977);

Clark v. Watchie, 513 F.2d 994 (9th Cir.

Ae7ety. Gere. Gen., 423 U.S. 841, 96 S. Ct.

72, 46 Lb. Ba. 24 60 (1975).

Further, her claim is barred by the

applicable Washington statute of limita-

tions. In 1976, the Washington Supreme

Court adopted the discovery rule in a

statute of limitations case in Peters v.

Simmons, 87 Wn.2d 400, 406, 552 P.2d 1053,

1056 (1976), stating:

a

[Wje hold that the statute of

limitations for legal malprac-

tice should not start to run

until the client discovers, or

in the exercise of reasonable

diligence should have discovered

the facts which give rise to his

or her cause of action.

The statute of limitations for legal mal-

practice is three years. RCW 4.16.080.

Halvorsen "knew" of her cause of action at

least by October 22, 1980 when she filed a

virtually identical lawsuit in state

court. The present federal action is

filed more than six years after her origi-

nal lawsuit against Ferguson & Burdell was

filed, and more than nine years after her

divorce action which allegedly gave rise

to the claim.

Finally, under Washington law, sum-

mary judgment is appropriate to avoid a

useless trial, Balise v. Underwood, 62

Wn.2d 195, 381 P.2d 966 (1963). The Wash-

ington Supreme Court has concluded that a

—: a

plaintiff was not deprived of her right to

a trial by jury by granting summary judg-

ment, Nave v. City of Seattle, 68 Wn.2d

721, 415 P.2d 93 (1966), appeal dismissed,

365 U.S. 450, 87 S$. Ct. 614, 17 L. Ba. 2a

513 (1967), rehearing den., 386 U.S. 929,

67 S. Ct. 853, 17 bs Ba. 26° 801i: (1967).

The substantive aspects of

Halvorsen's third action against Ferguson

& Burdell are patently meritless.

(2) The Eighth Circuit Properly Refused

Halvorsen's Notice of Appeal

With respect to the ostensible rea-

sons for Halvorsen's present petition,

Halvorsen has not demonstrated that any of

the criteria set forth in Rule 17 are

applicable in this case.

The Clerk of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit merely

complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1294. It is

error for a Circuit to accept a case from

- 14 «

outside its territorial jurisdiction,

Preston Co. v. Raese, 335 F.2d 827 (4th

Cir. 1964); Roofing & Sheet Metal Ser-

vices, Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.,

689 F.2d 982 (llth Cir. 1982).

Halvorsen also asserts that the broad

power of the federal courts to transfer a

case, 28 U.S.C. § 1404, should be invoked,

but 28 U.S.C. § 1404 only provides that

the district courts may transfer cases and

makes no reference to Circuit Courts of

Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 does not sus-

tain her position. First, the power to

transfer could only have been invoked by

the United States District Court for the

Western District of Washington and not a

Circuit Court of Appeals. Norwood v.

Rirkpetrick, 349 U.S. 29. 75 S. Ct. $44,

99 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1955), cited by peti-

tioner, clearly confirms this view. This

case pertains to the authority of a dis-

» 38 «

trict court to transfer a case under 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Halvorsen thus cites no

authority for extraterritorial jurisdic-

tion of the Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Second, even if transfer were somehow

appropriate under federal law, Halvorsen

has failed to set forth proper grounds for

transfer. She asserts in her Petition at

4:

The Ninth Circuit is very

male chauvinist; denied women

comparable worth; upheld a state

award to an ex-husband to search

his ex-wife's home four times a

year; and never allows women

oral argument. Petitioner's

appeal would be doomed before

she even files her Brief if she

must file in the Ninth Circuit.

This is unsupported.

She also alleges in her Petition at

The defendants petitioner

is suing and the attorneys rep-

resenting defendants are weal-

thy, influential law firms with

franchise offices in Washington,

D.C. and possibly other places

as well. One of the defendants

o 16 «

as well as one of the attorneys

representing the defendants is a

past president of the Washington

State Bar Association. In addi-

tion, the attorneys for defen-

dants also have a partner who

serves in the state legislature

as Chairman of the State Senate

Judiciary Committee and = who

raised every judge's salary in

the state of Washington while

continuing to practice before

the same judges whose salaries

he had raised. Another partner

in this same firm headed the

Judicial Qualifications Commis-

Sion, the discipline Commission

in this state, serving at the

same time these other partners

served in the aforementioned

capacities.

This is simply erroneous. Karr, Tuttle,

Koch, Campbell, Mawer, Morrow & Sax, P.S.,

counsel for Ferguson & Burdell, has no

"franchise office" or any other office in

Washington, D.C. F. Lee Campbell of that

firm is a past president of the Washington

State Bar Association and a past chair of

the Washington Judicial Qualifications

Commission; he is not involved with this

litigation. Philip A. Talmadge of that

a 29a

firm is a past chair of the Washington

State Senate Judiciary Committee. He did

not "raise every judge's salary in the

state of Washington" because prior to

1987, that required an act of the full

Legislature, signed by the Governor.

Since 1987, Washington state judicial

salaries have been set by a citizens com-

mission independent of the Legislature in

accordance with a constitutional amendment

adopted by Washington voters at the polls

in November, 1986. See, RCW 43.03.300 et.

seq.

William Wesselhoeft of Ferguson &

Burdell is a past president of the Wash-

ington State Bar Association, but

Ferguson & Burdell does not have a branch

office in Washington, D.C.

Halvorsen obviously —impugns the

integrity of the Washington State judi-

ciary and the judges of the Ninth Circuit,

—° 2

but all of this, of course, is thoroughly

irrelevant as to the independent federal

judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. ~Halvorsen simply failed to dem-

onstrate that transfer to the Eighth Cir-

cuit is appropriate.

(3) Halvorsen's Petition Is Frivolous and

Sanctions Should Be Imposed Against

Her

This Court should impose sanctions

against Halvorsen pursuant to Rule 49.2

and 28 U.S.C. § 1912. The District Court

properly determined that Halvorsen's case

was groundless.

The imposition of sanctions is appro-

priate where the action is clearly and

fundamentally without merit in law or in

fact. Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775

F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985). In Cook, an

employee filed several actions in federal

court after his identical state court

action was dismissed. The court found

o £2 :=

that the federal actions were "a carbon

copy of Cook's previous lawsuits, raising

the identical cause of action..." The

court affirmed the imposition of reason-

able attorneys' fees.

The chastisement given to Halvorsen

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in

Halvorsen v. State, supra, rings true for

the present action:

The only possible defense

against the charge that this is

vexatious litigation and_ the

prayer for resulting financial

sanctions would be the ignorance

of the law that a pro se liti-

gant may claim. In dragging

one's adversaries into court and

running up legal fees and costs,

however, no person has the right

to a free ride. Somebody has to

pay for these excursions. Going

into court is serious business.

A brief visit to a competent

lawyer would have provided

Halvorsen with the advice that

an appeal would be expensive and

frivolous. We do not think

conscious ignorance of this kind

is a defense.

Memo. Op. at 3-4.

The present action is indeed frivo-

lous for all of the reasons set forth

above. Halvorsen is the classic abusive

litigant about whom this Court should be

concerned. Note, “Abusive Pro Se Plain-

tiffs in Federal Courts: Proposals for

Judicial Controls," 18 U. Mich. J.L. Ref.

93 (1984). See, Clark vv. State of

Florida, is # , 8. Ce. , 90

L. Ed. 2d 330 (1986) (C.J. Burger concur).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of mandamus

should be denied. Sanctions for the fil-

ing of a frivolous petition should be

imposed against petitioner Halvorsen, Rule

49.2; 29 U.S.C. § 1912.

~ wh «

DATED this “£7;/ day of January,

1988.

Respectfully submitted,

spo OM] JZ] L- ra

sats F. Ross we Ce oes

Of Karr, Tuttle, a c

Campbell, Mawer, Morrow

& Sax, P.S.

Attorneys for Respondents

1111 Third Avenue

Suite 2500

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 223-1313

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

APPENDIX

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN)

JUDGMENT IN

A CIVIL CASE

)

Plaintiff, )

)

Vv. )

)

FERGUSON & BURDELL, ) NO. C87-617R

et al., )

)

)

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before

the Court for a trial by jury. The

issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came

to trial or hearing before the Court.

The issues have been tried or heard

and a decision has been rendered.

{IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that this action is dismissed with

prejudice.

Da*e August 5, 1987 Clerk Bruce Rifkin

(Signature)

(By) Deputy Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Plaintiff, NO. C87-617R

Ve.

FERGUSON & BURDELL, A FIRM ORDER

CONSISTING OF THE PARTNERS GRANTING

WILLIAM WESSELHOEFT, DONALD MOTION TO

McL. DAVIDSON, EDWARD DISMISS

HILPERT, JR., THOMAS J. AND FOR

GREENAN, HENRY W. DEAN, SANCTIONS

WILLIAM B. MOORE, C. DAVID

SHEPARD, W.J. THOMAS

FERGUSON, JAMES E. HURT,

WILLIAM D. STITES, BRUCE P.

BABBIT, E.P. SWAIN, JR.

CHRISTOPHER KANE, and HENRY)

C. JAMES, and WILLIAM )

WESSELHOEFT and MARGARET )

WESSELHOEFT and THEIR MARI-)

TAL COMMUNITY, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

OF WILLIAM H. FERGUSON, ) DEFENDANTS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

The Court, having considered the motion

of defendants filed on June 3, 1987 seeking

an order dismissing the above-captioned

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION

TO DISMISS AND FOR SANCTIONS - 1

cause of action; the Affidavit of David F.

Ross with attached exhibits 1-9; the

memorandum of authorities filed in support;

the responses of plaintiff; and having

considered the files and pleadings herein;

and

The Court having concluded that there

are no genuine issues of material fact with

respect to the motion; and

The Court having concluded that the

above-captioned cause of action was filed

in violation of Rule 11, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants motion to dismiss is

granted;

2. Plaintiff's cause of action is

dismissed with prejudice;

3. Sanctions are awarded to defendants

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION

TO DISMISS AND FOR SANCTIONS - 2

and against plaintiff for costs’ and

reasonable attorney's fees upon proper

substantiation.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 4th day

of August, 1987.

(Signature)

HONORABLE BARBARA ROTHSTEIN

Presented by:

(Signature)

David F. Ross

Karr, Tuttle, Koch, Campbell,

Mawer, Morrow & Sax P.S.

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION

TO DISMISS AND FOR SANCTIONS - 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN

Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL

JUDGMENT IN

)

)

)

)

Vv. ) A CIVIL CASE

)

)

)

)

FERGUSON & BURDELL,

et al.,

NO. C87-617C

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before

the Court for a trial by jury. The

issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came

to trial or hearing before the Court.

The issues have been tried or heard

and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that defendants shall have of plaintiff

the sum of $2,111.00 for reasonable

| attorneys' fees.

Date 9 September 1987 Clerk BRUCE RIFKIN

(Signature)

(By) Deputy Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Plaintiff, NO. C87-617C

V.

FERGUSON & BURDELL, A FIRM ORDER AND

CONSISTING OF THE PARTNERS JUDGMENT RE

OF WILLIAM H. FERGUSON, ATTORNEYS '

McL. DAVIDSON, EDWARD

HiLPERT, JR., THOMAS J.

GREENAN, HENRY W. DEAN,

WILLIAM B. MOORE, C. DAVID

SHEPARD, W.J. THOMAS

FERGUSON, JAMES E. HURT,

WILLIAM D. STITES, BRUCE P.

BABBIT, E.P. SWAIN, JR.

CHRISTOPHER KANE, and HENRY)

C. JAMES, and WILLIAM )

WESSELHOEFT and MARGARET )

WESSELHOEFT and THEIR MARI-)

tal community, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

WILLIAM WESSELHOEFT, DONALD) FEE’S

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

The Court, having considered _ the

Affidavit of David F. Ross’7 regarding

attorneys' fees filed pursuant to the Court's

Order Granting Sanctions filed on August

ORDER AND JUDGMENT RE

ATTORNEYS' FEES - 1

5S, 1987; and having considered the files

and pleadings herein and being fully advised

AND having further determined that the

attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,111.00

as set forth in the affidavit are reasonable;

NOW THERFORE:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that defendants have judgment

against plaintiff in the sum of $2,111.00

for reasonable attorneys' fees.

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 8th day

of September , 1987.

(Signature)

JUDGE BARBARA ROTHSTEIN

ORDER AND JUDGMENT RE

ATTORNEYS' FEES - 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Plaintiff, NO. C87-617R

NOTICE OF

APPEAL

V.

FERGUSON & BURDELL,

et al.,

Defendants.

Rd

Notice is hereby given that Mary

Catherine Halvorsen, plaintiff above-named,

hereby appeals to the United States Court

Of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the

Order dismissing plaintiff's case against

Ferguson & Burdell, dated August 4, 1987,

entered August 4, 1987, and received by

plaintiff August 7, 1987.

Plaintiff is appealing to the Eighth

Circuit because it ~sS common knowledge women

NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1

= © _—

Cannot obtain a fair hearing from the Ninth

Circuit. Witness the comparable worth

decision.

DATED this lst day of September 1987.

(Signature)

Mary Catherine Halvorsen, plaintiff

8234 N.E.Hidden Cove Road

Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110

Telephone: (206) 842-5439

NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2

-10-

8324 N.E. Hidden Cove Road

Bainbridge Island, Wash. 98110

September 3, 1987

Clerk of the Court

United States District Court

1010 Fifth Avenue

Seattle, Washington

RE: NO. C87-617R

Dear Clerk of the Court:

Pursuant to our conversation this

morning wherein you informed me that you

could not process an appeal to the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals, I am writing this

letter.

I will send my appeal directly to the

Eighth Circuit myself.

Thank you for your attention to this

matter.

Sincerely yours,

(Signature)

Mary Catherine Halvorsen

plaintiff

2)

2)

David W. Ross

Karr, Tuttle et al.,

2500 Third Avenue Building

1111 Third Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

8324 N.E. Hidden Cove Road

Bainbridge Island, Wash. 98110

September 3, 1987

Clerk of the Court

United States Court of Appeals

Eighth Circuit

511 U0. S. Court and Customs House

St. Louis, Mo. 63101

RE: C87-617R

Dear Clerk of the Court:

Enclosed herewith are the following:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

LETTER TO CLERK OF THE COURT,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, SEATTLE.

As per my letter to the Clerk of the

District Court in Seattle, I am sending my

appeal directly to you for processing.

Thank you for your attention in this

matter.

ery truly yours,

(Signature)

Mary Catherine Halvorsen

V 5

S

e ef Ale,

Avenue

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Eighth Circuit

U.S. Court and Custom House

1114 Market Street

St. Louis, Missouri 63101

Robert D. St. Vrain 314-425-5600

Clerk FTS: 279-5600

Ms. Mary Catherine Halvorsen

8324 N.E. Hidden Cove Rd.

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Re: No. Mary Catherine Halvorsen,

vs. Ferguson & Burdell, et al.

Dear Ms. Halvorsen:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter

of September 3, 1987, and enclosures. Your

notice of appeal is being sent back to the

Western District of Washington for

processing in compliance with the rules.

This court does not have jurisdiction to

hear appeals from courts outside this

circuit.

Sincerely

(Signature)

Robert St. Vrain

Clerk of Court

jh

Enclosures

CC;

- 34°

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk,

U.S.

308

District Court

U.S. Courthouse,

Seattle WA 98104

(Dist. Ct. No. C87-617R)

1010 5th

Ave.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Plaintiff, NO. 87-617R

Vv. NOTICE OF

FERGUSON & BURDELL, THE UNITED

et al., STATES

_ SUPREME

Defendants. COURT

)

)

)

)

)

) APPEAL TO

)

)

)

)

)

Notice is hereby given that Mary

Catherine Halvorsen, plaintiff above-named,

hereby appeals to the United States Supreme

Court the issue of jurisdiction of filing

an appeal in an Appellate Court of another

Circuit when the regular Circuit Appellate

Court is notably biased against women

appellants.

DATED this 2lst day of September 1987.

(Signature)

Mary Catherine Halvorsen, Appellant

8324 N.E. Hidden Cove Road

Bainbridge Island, Wash. 98110

Telephone: (206) 842-5439

- 16-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARY CATHERINE HALVORSEN,

Plaintiff, NO. C87-617R

APPEAL

FERGUSON & BURDELL,

a | eo

)

)

)

)

Vv. ) AMENDED

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

Notice is hereby given that Mary

Catherine Halvorsen, plaintiff above-named,

hereby amends her appeal to include the

award of attorneys' fees and judgment filed

September 9, 1987.

Since the exact court in which to file

the appeal is itself on appeal, plaintiff

assumes that her appeal will be held in

abeyance until further direction of a higher

court.

DATED this 21st day of September 1987.

(Signature)

Mary Catherine Halvorsen,

Plaintiff/Appellant

ee creme a hagay