Contact
- Phone: (206) 623-1700
- Fax: (206) 623-8717
- Assistant: Florine Fujita
- vCard
Randall Thomsen has a well-deserved reputation as a creative litigator, handling complex cases in state and federal courts. He has successfully litigated cases on a wide-variety of topics, including business and shareholder disputes, lawsuits against governmental entities, class actions, breach of contract cases, real property disputes, personal injury claims, wrongful death and mass casualty cases, antitrust actions, and employment disputes. Randall represents both plaintiffs and defendants.
Washington Law and Politics has selected Randall as a Super Lawyer annually since 2012. Benchmark Litigation also has identified him as a top Washington lawyer and a Local Litigation Star.
He previously served on the Washington State Bar Association’s Judicial Review Committee and was a member of the Lewis Powell Chapter of the Inns of the Court. He is a graduate of Gonzaga University. While at Gonzaga he was a member of Gonzaga’s national debate team and, during law school, received the prestigious Thomas More Scholarship granted to those with outstanding academic achievement and a commitment to public service. Randall also has a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from the University of Washington’s School of Public Affairs. Randall joined the firm in 1997 after serving as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Dennis J. Sweeney of the Washington State Court of Appeals.
Representative Cases
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, Snohomish County in six consolidated lawsuits arising from the March 2014 Oso Landslide in which 43 people were killed. The lawsuits involved over forty plaintiffs who asserted claims against the County for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage. In the first consolidated lawsuit, the trial court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the County. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. The second case was dismissed by plaintiffs as a result of the outcome in the first case. See Regelbrugge, et al. v. Snohomish County, et al., 7 Wn. App. 2d 29, 432 P.3d 859 (2018).
Defended King and Snohomish Counties, both at trial court and on appeal, against a putative class action brought on behalf of criminal defendants that had their simple drug possession charges deemed unconstitutional based on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of over an alleged $100 hundred million in legal financial obligations paid to the Counties and the State of Washington. The class purported to include over 100,000 potential class members and involved claims dating back to 1973. The Counties prevailed by way of a motion to dismiss at the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on appeal. See Civil Survival Project v. State of Washington, King County, & Snohomish County, 24 Wn. App. 2d 564, 520 P.3d 1066 (2022).
Successfully represented the State of Washington in a class action lawsuit involving over 100,000 class members and $7 billion in claims. Class members alleged that the Legislature’s repeal of a cost-of-living adjustment for State employees under the State’s pension system was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the class members, and the State successfully obtained direct review of the superior court’s decision. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision and held that the Legislature’s repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment was constitutional. See Washington Educ. Ass’n v. Dept. of Ret. Sys., 181 Wn.2d 212, 332 P.3d 428 (2014).
Defended the Port of Seattle in two lawsuits brought by a prominent national law firm on behalf of 141 property owners that claimed that the Port had improperly converted plaintiffs’ property by purchasing the East Side Rail Corridor and transferring the corridor to King County. The plaintiffs sued to prevent the Port and other local government entities from using the corridor for utilities and passenger rail. They claimed that the Rails to Trails Act extinguished the railroad easements in the corridor. The district court granted a series of summary judgments in favor of the Port that resulted in a dismissal of the cases. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an unanimous opinion that the Rails to Trails Act preserved the prior railroad easements and that the corridor could be used for utilities and passenger rail, in addition to its use as a trail. The United States Supreme Court also denied plaintiffs’ request for review. See Kaseburg, et al. v. Port of Seattle, 744 Fed. Appx. 356 (9th Cir. 2018).
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, the City of Mercer Island in its widely publicized fight to mitigate the impacts of the closure of the center express lanes of I-90, as part of Sound Transit’s expansion of light rail to Seattle’s Eastside. The case involved intense litigation in multiple forums. Just ahead of a hearing on the City’s request for an injunction, the City Council accepted a settlement offer of $10.1 million in mitigation payments from Sound Transit.
Complex Civil Litigation
Defended the estate of a prominent Seattle businessman against five separate lawsuits and a dozen creditor claims. After the decedent’s passing, family members, affiliated trusts, lenders, and other companies filed multiple lawsuits and creditor claims against the estate seeking damages more than $50 million. In the largest lawsuit, a company and group of family members asserted claims against the estate for the decedent’s breach of his fiduciary duties and mismanagement of various family-owned companies. After a series of successful motions in several of the matters, the estate resolved all lawsuits and creditor claims with a “walk away” settlement that preserved the estate’s assets for its intended beneficiaries.
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Defended the Seattle School District in two separate lawsuits brought by the District’s long-term disability insurer that sought indemnification from the District for claims brought against it by a class of District teachers and employees. The insurer sought damages of more than $40 million. The District successfully defended the claims, obtained dismissals of both cases, and recovered nearly $1.8 million from the insurer that the insurer wrongfully had withheld in breach of its contract with the District.
Represented a large Washington automobile insurer in the defense of a class action brought by a prominent plaintiff’s firm relating to the valuation of automobiles involved in total losses. The case was one of a dozen class actions that plaintiff’s firm had successfully pursued throughout the United States. The case involved over 21,000 claims and alleged damages greater than $48 million. The case successfully was resolved by way of settlement for a fraction of the potential damages and the insurer obtained favorable terms that allowed it to both challenge any class member claim and receive credit from the common fund for any unfiled or disputed claims.
Defended King County against $250 million in claims by a regional water and sewer districts related to the operation and funding of the County’s Wastewater Treatment Division. After a six-week trial in Pierce County Superior Court, the Court ruled in favor of King County. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the decision in King County’s favor in a unanimous opinion. See Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 859 (2013).
Defended the Port of Seattle against claims by taxpayers seeking to invalidate the Port’s $81 million purchase of the Eastside Rail Corridor in 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that the purchase was outside the Port’s authority and a misuse of public funds. After extensive discovery, the trial court denied class certification. The trial court then dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ substantive claims on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Lane v. Port of Seattle, 178 Wn. App. 110, 316 P.3d 1070 (2013).
Defended an owner of one of the region’s largest data centers against claims asserted by a Fortune 500 company for fraud and breach of contract in a claim in excess of $200 million. After considerable discovery and motion practice, the case was successfully resolved with plaintiff dismissing the claims and agreeing to abide by the terms of the lease agreement.
Defended an Internet entrepreneur against a $460 million business fraud claim. The case was resolved by a nominal settlement during trial, following a series of successful summary judgment motions that dismissed virtually all of the plaintiff’s claims.
Defended an owner of a large regional shopping mall in Spokane County against claims brought by a national Real Estate Investment Trust alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentations in the sale of the shopping mall in a $120 million transaction. The claims were successfully dismissed by way of summary judgment before trial.
Represented the State of Washington in two companion lawsuits brought by a sitting Washington State Supreme Court justice. One action involved a claim under Washington’s Public Disclosure Act and the second sought indemnification for attorneys fees incurred by the justice in defending against a disciplinary proceeding. The State prevailed by summary judgment in both actions at the trial court. At both the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court, the appellate courts affirmed the superior courts’ decisions in all material respects. See Honorable Richard Sanders v. State of Washington, 169 Wn.2d 827, 240 P.3d 120 (2010) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of Public Records Act claims asserted by Supreme Court justice against Washington State Attorney General’s office); Honorable Richard Sanders v. State of Washington,166 Wn.2d 164, 207 P.3d 1245 (2009) (finding no entitlement to indemnification for attorneys fees incurred by Supreme Court justice charged with ethical violations involving acts outside the scope of a judge’s official duties).
Represented a money transmission company in defending over a dozen separate claims, lawsuits, and proceedings brought by various private plaintiffs, state and federal regulatory authorities, and the Department of Justice. The company, financially crippled by the great recession, was beset by multiple claims throughout the United States and being actively investigated by federal prosecutors and regulatory authorities for violations of federal consumer protection laws and money transmission requirements. Randall successfully resolved all the matters, including a substantial class action proceeding brought by a national law class action law firm, by negotiating over a dozen agreed settlements or outright dismissals. As a result of his efforts, the company was able to be wound down by its principal managing member without any tail liabilities or financial exposure of any individuals.
Represented clients in the following additional published decisions:
Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust, LLC, 723 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing antitrust claims against an auto parts distributor based on allegation of distributors receipt of favorable prices from exhaust manufacturer);
Strain v. West Travel, Inc.,117 Wn. App. 251, 70 P.3d 158 (2003) (holding that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act preempted Washington’s Minimum Wage Act in class action lawsuit by cruise employees for overtime wages);
Professional Marine Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,118 Wn. App. 694, 77 P.3d 658 (2003) (holding that the assignee of a default judgment was entitled to maintain claim against Lloyd’s of London for policy benefits provided to insured);
Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 145 Wn.2d 137, 34 P.3d 809 (2001) (holding that Washington’s public policy against awarding punitive damages does not bar insurability of punitive damages awarded in a California lawsuit against a manufacturer);
Sabey v. Howard Johnson & Co., 101 Wn. App. 575, 5P.3d 730 (2000) (holding that common law right of indemnity existed for an individual incurring liability to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation because of actions of actuary).
Class Action and Multi-Party Litigation
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Represented a large Washington automobile insurer in the defense of a class action brought by a prominent plaintiff’s firm relating to the valuation of automobiles involved in total losses. The case was one of a dozen class actions that plaintiff’s firm had successfully pursued throughout the United States. The case involved over 21,000 claims and alleged damages greater than $48 million. The case successfully was resolved by way of settlement for a fraction of the potential damages and the insurer obtained favorable terms that allowed it to both challenge any class member claim and receive credit from the common fund for any unfiled or disputed claims.
Defended King and Snohomish Counties, both at trial court and on appeal, against a putative class action brought on behalf of criminal defendants that had their simple drug possession charges deemed unconstitutional based on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of over an alleged $100 hundred million in legal financial obligations paid to the Counties and the State of Washington. The class purported to include over 100,000 potential class members and involved claims dating back to 1973. The Counties prevailed by way of a motion to dismiss at the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on appeal. See Civil Survival Project v. State of Washington, King County, & Snohomish County, 24 Wn. App. 2d 564, 520 P.3d 1066 (2022).
Successfully represented the State of Washington in a class action lawsuit involving over 100,000 class members and $7 billion in claims. Class members alleged that the Legislature’s repeal of a cost-of-living adjustment for State employees under the State’s pension system was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the class members, and the State successfully obtained direct review by the Washington Supreme Court of the superior court’s decision. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision and held that the Legislature’s repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment was constitutional. See Washington Educ. Ass’n v. Dept. of Ret. Sys., 181 Wn.2d 212, 332 P.3d 428 (2014).
Prevailed at trial and on appeal while representing King County in a case involving $250 million in claims brought on behalf of over 34 regional water and sewer districts and cities. The water and sewer districts alleged that the County had used wastewater fees for purposes beyond the wastewater function, including for the construction and mitigation related to the County’s Brightwater Treatment Plant. After a six-week trial in Pierce County Superior Court, the Court ruled in favor of King County. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 859 (2013).
Received summary judgment dismissals on behalf of the Port of Seattle in a lawsuit brought by a prominent national law firm on behalf of 141 property owners. Plaintiffs claimed that the Port had improperly converted their property by purchasing the East Side Rail Corridor and transferring the corridor to King County. The plaintiffs sued to prevent the Port and other local government entities from using the corridor for utilities and passenger rail and alleged that the federal Rails to Trails Act extinguished the railroad easements in the corridor. The district court granted a series of summary judgments in favor of the Port that resulted in a dismissal of the case. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a unanimous opinion that the Rails to Trails Act preserved the prior railroad easements and that the corridor could be used for utilities and passenger rail, in addition to its use as a trail. The United States Supreme Court also denied plaintiffs’ request for review. See Kaseburg, et al. v. Port of Seattle, 744 Fed. Appx. 356 (9th Cir. 2018).
Represented King County in connection with a two hundred-million-dollar loss experienced by the County’s Investment Pool during the aftermath of the financial crisis. The County’s Investment Pool, which invests funds on behalf of over a hundred local governments, districts, and agencies, experienced a catastrophic loss as a result of the default of several entities. The County was advised on a series of code and policy changes to respond to the crisis that allowed the County to weather the decline, avoid claims being asserted against it, and recoup the losses during later work-outs of the defaulting parties.
Successfully represented a prominent Seattle real estate development company in prosecuting claims against multiple parties under Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). During the development of a significant retail project in downtown Seattle, the developer encountered environmental contamination that caused lengthy construction delays and substantial excavation and construction costs. The contamination was traced to multiple parties, including several that operated on the property at the beginning of the 19th Century. The contributing parties were sued in a multi-party cost recovery action under MTCA. After substantial discovery, the matter was resolved by way of a multi-million-dollar settlement that allowed the developer to recoup virtually all its damages.
Defended the Port of Seattle against a putative class action brought by taxpayers seeking to invalidate the Port’s $81 million purchase of the Eastside Rail Corridor. Plaintiffs alleged that the purchase was outside the Port’s authority, a misuse of public funds, and sought a refund of the purchase price to taxpayers. After extensive discovery, the trial court denied class certification. The trial court then dismissed all of plaintiffs’ substantive claims on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Lane v. Port of Seattle, 178 Wn. App. 110, 316 P.3d 1070 (2013).
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, Snohomish County in six consolidated lawsuits arising from the March 2014 Oso Landslide in which 43 people were killed. The lawsuits involved over forty plaintiffs who asserted claims against the County for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage. In the first consolidated lawsuit, the trial court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the County. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. The second case was dismissed by plaintiffs as a result of the outcome in the first case. See Regelbrugge, et al. v. Snohomish County, et al., 7 Wn. App. 2d 29, 432 P.3d 859 (2018).
Prevailed in putative class action brought by approximately two dozen property owners adjacent to Eastside Rail Corridor. Property owners claimed that the Port of Seattle improperly allowed the use of a railbanked corridor and that the uses interfered with property owner’s reversionary property rights. The United States District Court dismissed the case by way of summary judgment after the Port established that the named class representatives and other potential class members had failed to meet certain statutory prerequisites to maintain their claims. Ioppolo v. Port of Seattle, 2015 WL 13187674 (W.D. Wash. 2015).
Represented the Washington State and nearly a hundred of its affiliated agencies in several class action cases based on the State’s failure to provide health care benefits to part-time employees and community college instructors. The most significant matter involved a class that involved nine thousand class members and claims in excess of $577 million. A series of summary judgment motions were brought to substantially narrow the class and awardable damages so that only a fraction of original claims remained. The collection of lawsuits were resolved through a global settlement in which the State only paid a small percentage of the damages sought.
Successfully defended a local cruise company against putative class action brought by customer service representatives for unpaid wages. The cruise company employed hundreds of customer service representatives that alleged they were undercompensated based on their job duties. The case was dismissed by way of summary judgment as a result of establishing that the local cruise company, based on its international operations, was not subject to Washington State’s minimum wage law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous verdict and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. See Strain v. West Travel, Inc., 117 Wn. App. 251, 70 P.3d 158 (2003).
Represented a money transmission company in defending over a dozen separate claims, lawsuits, and proceedings brought by various private plaintiffs, state and federal regulatory authorities, and the Department of Justice. The company, financially crippled by the great recession, was beset by multiple claims throughout the United States and being actively investigated by federal prosecutors and regulatory authorities for violations of federal consumer protection laws and money transmission requirements. All matters against the company were successfully resolved, including a substantial class action proceeding brought by a national law class action law firm, through the negotiation of over a dozen agreed settlements or outright dismissals. As a result of these efforts, the principal managing member was able to wind down the company without any tail liabilities or financial exposure.
Employment
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Represented a salesperson of a Fortune 500 company in pursuing claims against his former employer for breach of the salesperson’s commission agreement and wrongful termination. The company, represented by a national law firm, vigorously defended against the claim. After considerable discovery and motion practice, the case was successfully resolved with the company agreed to pay a settlement in the high six figures to the salesperson.
Defended a prominent local cruise ship company in a class action brought by hundreds of customer service representatives. The class alleged that the company violated Washington’s Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay minimum wages to crewmembers during their employment on the company’s vessels. After extensive discovery, the court dismissed the claims by holding that federal maritime preempted Washington law. The trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Represented the State of Washington defending claims by a class of approximately 9,000 part-time and seasonal employees for wrongful denial of healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $500 million. The case was settled in mediation following a series of favorable trial court rulings that both substantially narrowed the class and the amount of awardable damages.
Represented the president of a company that owned and operated a collegiate football bowl event in his breach of contract claims against the company. The CEO summarily terminated the president and the company refused to pay wages and other benefits owed. After a series of successful motions in the federal court, Randall obtained a six-figure judgment against the company and its CEO.
Represented a pharmaceutical employee wrongfully terminated after she became pregnant. Without filing any lawsuit, the case was resolved in a mediation with the employer that resulted in a substantial settlement for the employee.
Represented a salesperson of a major defense contractor after he was terminated and denied sales commissions he had earned under his commission agreement. After filing the lawsuit and without the need for discovery, the parties successfully negotiated a sizeable settlement with the contractor, who agreed to comply with the terms of the commission agreement.
Education
- Gonzaga University
- J.D., magna cum laude, Thomas More Scholar, Member of Law Review, Winner of Linden Cup, 1995
- University of Washington
- M.A. Public Administration, 1992
- Gonzaga University
- B.A. Political Science; B.A. Speech Communication, cum laude, Member of National Debate Team, 1990
Experience
- Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen LLP
- 1997 – Present
-
Law Clerk to the Honorable Dennis J. Sweeney, Chief Judge
Washington Court of Appeals-
1995 – 1997
-
Admitted to Practice
- Washington
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals
- Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Courts
- Western District of Washington
Randall Thomsen has a well-deserved reputation as a creative litigator, handling complex cases in state and federal courts. He has successfully litigated cases on a wide-variety of topics, including business and shareholder disputes, lawsuits against governmental entities, class actions, breach of contract cases, real property disputes, personal injury claims, wrongful death and mass casualty cases, antitrust actions, and employment disputes. Randall represents both plaintiffs and defendants.
Washington Law and Politics has selected Randall as a Super Lawyer annually since 2012. Benchmark Litigation also has identified him as a top Washington lawyer and a Local Litigation Star.
He previously served on the Washington State Bar Association’s Judicial Review Committee and was a member of the Lewis Powell Chapter of the Inns of the Court. He is a graduate of Gonzaga University. While at Gonzaga he was a member of Gonzaga’s national debate team and, during law school, received the prestigious Thomas More Scholarship granted to those with outstanding academic achievement and a commitment to public service. Randall also has a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from the University of Washington’s School of Public Affairs. Randall joined the firm in 1997 after serving as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Dennis J. Sweeney of the Washington State Court of Appeals.
Representative Cases
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, Snohomish County in six consolidated lawsuits arising from the March 2014 Oso Landslide in which 43 people were killed. The lawsuits involved over forty plaintiffs who asserted claims against the County for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage. In the first consolidated lawsuit, the trial court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the County. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. The second case was dismissed by plaintiffs as a result of the outcome in the first case. See Regelbrugge, et al. v. Snohomish County, et al., 7 Wn. App. 2d 29, 432 P.3d 859 (2018).
Defended King and Snohomish Counties, both at trial court and on appeal, against a putative class action brought on behalf of criminal defendants that had their simple drug possession charges deemed unconstitutional based on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of over an alleged $100 hundred million in legal financial obligations paid to the Counties and the State of Washington. The class purported to include over 100,000 potential class members and involved claims dating back to 1973. The Counties prevailed by way of a motion to dismiss at the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on appeal. See Civil Survival Project v. State of Washington, King County, & Snohomish County, 24 Wn. App. 2d 564, 520 P.3d 1066 (2022).
Successfully represented the State of Washington in a class action lawsuit involving over 100,000 class members and $7 billion in claims. Class members alleged that the Legislature’s repeal of a cost-of-living adjustment for State employees under the State’s pension system was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the class members, and the State successfully obtained direct review of the superior court’s decision. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision and held that the Legislature’s repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment was constitutional. See Washington Educ. Ass’n v. Dept. of Ret. Sys., 181 Wn.2d 212, 332 P.3d 428 (2014).
Defended the Port of Seattle in two lawsuits brought by a prominent national law firm on behalf of 141 property owners that claimed that the Port had improperly converted plaintiffs’ property by purchasing the East Side Rail Corridor and transferring the corridor to King County. The plaintiffs sued to prevent the Port and other local government entities from using the corridor for utilities and passenger rail. They claimed that the Rails to Trails Act extinguished the railroad easements in the corridor. The district court granted a series of summary judgments in favor of the Port that resulted in a dismissal of the cases. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an unanimous opinion that the Rails to Trails Act preserved the prior railroad easements and that the corridor could be used for utilities and passenger rail, in addition to its use as a trail. The United States Supreme Court also denied plaintiffs’ request for review. See Kaseburg, et al. v. Port of Seattle, 744 Fed. Appx. 356 (9th Cir. 2018).
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, the City of Mercer Island in its widely publicized fight to mitigate the impacts of the closure of the center express lanes of I-90, as part of Sound Transit’s expansion of light rail to Seattle’s Eastside. The case involved intense litigation in multiple forums. Just ahead of a hearing on the City’s request for an injunction, the City Council accepted a settlement offer of $10.1 million in mitigation payments from Sound Transit.
Complex Civil Litigation
Defended King and Snohomish Counties, both at trial court and on appeal, against a putative class action brought on behalf of criminal defendants that had their simple drug possession charges deemed unconstitutional based on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of over an alleged $100 hundred million in legal financial obligations paid to the Counties and the State of Washington. The class purported to include over 100,000 potential class members and involved claims dating back to 1973. The Counties prevailed by way of a motion to dismiss at the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on appeal. See Civil Survival Project v. State of Washington, King County, & Snohomish County, 24 Wn. App. 2d 564, 520 P.3d 1066 (2022).
Defended the estate of a prominent Seattle businessman against five separate lawsuits and a dozen creditor claims. After the decedent’s passing, family members, affiliated trusts, lenders, and other companies filed multiple lawsuits and creditor claims against the estate seeking damages more than $50 million. In the largest lawsuit, a company and group of family members asserted claims against the estate for the decedent’s breach of his fiduciary duties and mismanagement of various family-owned companies. After a series of successful motions in several of the matters, the estate resolved all lawsuits and creditor claims with a “walk away” settlement that preserved the estate’s assets for its intended beneficiaries.
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Defended the Seattle School District in two separate lawsuits brought by the District’s long-term disability insurer that sought indemnification from the District for claims brought against it by a class of District teachers and employees. The insurer sought damages of more than $40 million. The District successfully defended the claims, obtained dismissals of both cases, and recovered nearly $1.8 million from the insurer that the insurer wrongfully had withheld in breach of its contract with the District.
Represented a large Washington automobile insurer in the defense of a class action brought by a prominent plaintiff’s firm relating to the valuation of automobiles involved in total losses. The case was one of a dozen class actions that plaintiff’s firm had successfully pursued throughout the United States. The case involved over 21,000 claims and alleged damages greater than $48 million. The case successfully was resolved by way of settlement for a fraction of the potential damages and the insurer obtained favorable terms that allowed it to both challenge any class member claim and receive credit from the common fund for any unfiled or disputed claims.
Defended King County against $250 million in claims by a regional water and sewer districts related to the operation and funding of the County’s Wastewater Treatment Division. After a six-week trial in Pierce County Superior Court, the Court ruled in favor of King County. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the decision in King County’s favor in a unanimous opinion. See Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 859 (2013).
Defended the Port of Seattle against claims by taxpayers seeking to invalidate the Port’s $81 million purchase of the Eastside Rail Corridor in 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that the purchase was outside the Port’s authority and a misuse of public funds. After extensive discovery, the trial court denied class certification. The trial court then dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ substantive claims on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Lane v. Port of Seattle, 178 Wn. App. 110, 316 P.3d 1070 (2013).
Defended an owner of one of the region’s largest data centers against claims asserted by a Fortune 500 company for fraud and breach of contract in a claim in excess of $200 million. After considerable discovery and motion practice, the case was successfully resolved with plaintiff dismissing the claims and agreeing to abide by the terms of the lease agreement.
Defended an Internet entrepreneur against a $460 million business fraud claim. The case was resolved by a nominal settlement during trial, following a series of successful summary judgment motions that dismissed virtually all of the plaintiff’s claims.
Defended an owner of a large regional shopping mall in Spokane County against claims brought by a national Real Estate Investment Trust alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentations in the sale of the shopping mall in a $120 million transaction. The claims were successfully dismissed by way of summary judgment before trial.
Represented the State of Washington in two companion lawsuits brought by a sitting Washington State Supreme Court justice. One action involved a claim under Washington’s Public Disclosure Act and the second sought indemnification for attorneys fees incurred by the justice in defending against a disciplinary proceeding. The State prevailed by summary judgment in both actions at the trial court. At both the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court, the appellate courts affirmed the superior courts’ decisions in all material respects. See Honorable Richard Sanders v. State of Washington, 169 Wn.2d 827, 240 P.3d 120 (2010) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of Public Records Act claims asserted by Supreme Court justice against Washington State Attorney General’s office); Honorable Richard Sanders v. State of Washington,166 Wn.2d 164, 207 P.3d 1245 (2009) (finding no entitlement to indemnification for attorneys fees incurred by Supreme Court justice charged with ethical violations involving acts outside the scope of a judge’s official duties).
Represented a money transmission company in defending over a dozen separate claims, lawsuits, and proceedings brought by various private plaintiffs, state and federal regulatory authorities, and the Department of Justice. The company, financially crippled by the great recession, was beset by multiple claims throughout the United States and being actively investigated by federal prosecutors and regulatory authorities for violations of federal consumer protection laws and money transmission requirements. Randall successfully resolved all the matters, including a substantial class action proceeding brought by a national law class action law firm, by negotiating over a dozen agreed settlements or outright dismissals. As a result of his efforts, the company was able to be wound down by its principal managing member without any tail liabilities or financial exposure of any individuals.
Represented clients in the following additional published decisions:
Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust, LLC, 723 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing antitrust claims against an auto parts distributor based on allegation of distributors receipt of favorable prices from exhaust manufacturer);
Strain v. West Travel, Inc.,117 Wn. App. 251, 70 P.3d 158 (2003) (holding that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act preempted Washington’s Minimum Wage Act in class action lawsuit by cruise employees for overtime wages);
Professional Marine Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,118 Wn. App. 694, 77 P.3d 658 (2003) (holding that the assignee of a default judgment was entitled to maintain claim against Lloyd’s of London for policy benefits provided to insured);
Fluke Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 145 Wn.2d 137, 34 P.3d 809 (2001) (holding that Washington’s public policy against awarding punitive damages does not bar insurability of punitive damages awarded in a California lawsuit against a manufacturer);
Sabey v. Howard Johnson & Co., 101 Wn. App. 575, 5P.3d 730 (2000) (holding that common law right of indemnity existed for an individual incurring liability to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation because of actions of actuary).
Class Action and Multi-Party Litigation
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Represented a large Washington automobile insurer in the defense of a class action brought by a prominent plaintiff’s firm relating to the valuation of automobiles involved in total losses. The case was one of a dozen class actions that plaintiff’s firm had successfully pursued throughout the United States. The case involved over 21,000 claims and alleged damages greater than $48 million. The case successfully was resolved by way of settlement for a fraction of the potential damages and the insurer obtained favorable terms that allowed it to both challenge any class member claim and receive credit from the common fund for any unfiled or disputed claims.
Defended King and Snohomish Counties, both at trial court and on appeal, against a putative class action brought on behalf of criminal defendants that had their simple drug possession charges deemed unconstitutional based on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of over an alleged $100 hundred million in legal financial obligations paid to the Counties and the State of Washington. The class purported to include over 100,000 potential class members and involved claims dating back to 1973. The Counties prevailed by way of a motion to dismiss at the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on appeal. See Civil Survival Project v. State of Washington, King County, & Snohomish County, 24 Wn. App. 2d 564, 520 P.3d 1066 (2022).
Successfully represented the State of Washington in a class action lawsuit involving over 100,000 class members and $7 billion in claims. Class members alleged that the Legislature’s repeal of a cost-of-living adjustment for State employees under the State’s pension system was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the class members, and the State successfully obtained direct review by the Washington Supreme Court of the superior court’s decision. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision and held that the Legislature’s repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment was constitutional. See Washington Educ. Ass’n v. Dept. of Ret. Sys., 181 Wn.2d 212, 332 P.3d 428 (2014).
Prevailed at trial and on appeal while representing King County in a case involving $250 million in claims brought on behalf of over 34 regional water and sewer districts and cities. The water and sewer districts alleged that the County had used wastewater fees for purposes beyond the wastewater function, including for the construction and mitigation related to the County’s Brightwater Treatment Plant. After a six-week trial in Pierce County Superior Court, the Court ruled in favor of King County. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 859 (2013).
Received summary judgment dismissals on behalf of the Port of Seattle in a lawsuit brought by a prominent national law firm on behalf of 141 property owners. Plaintiffs claimed that the Port had improperly converted their property by purchasing the East Side Rail Corridor and transferring the corridor to King County. The plaintiffs sued to prevent the Port and other local government entities from using the corridor for utilities and passenger rail and alleged that the federal Rails to Trails Act extinguished the railroad easements in the corridor. The district court granted a series of summary judgments in favor of the Port that resulted in a dismissal of the case. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a unanimous opinion that the Rails to Trails Act preserved the prior railroad easements and that the corridor could be used for utilities and passenger rail, in addition to its use as a trail. The United States Supreme Court also denied plaintiffs’ request for review. See Kaseburg, et al. v. Port of Seattle, 744 Fed. Appx. 356 (9th Cir. 2018).
Represented King County in connection with a two hundred-million-dollar loss experienced by the County’s Investment Pool during the aftermath of the financial crisis. The County’s Investment Pool, which invests funds on behalf of over a hundred local governments, districts, and agencies, experienced a catastrophic loss as a result of the default of several entities. The County was advised on a series of code and policy changes to respond to the crisis that allowed the County to weather the decline, avoid claims being asserted against it, and recoup the losses during later work-outs of the defaulting parties.
Successfully represented a prominent Seattle real estate development company in prosecuting claims against multiple parties under Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). During the development of a significant retail project in downtown Seattle, the developer encountered environmental contamination that caused lengthy construction delays and substantial excavation and construction costs. The contamination was traced to multiple parties, including several that operated on the property at the beginning of the 19th Century. The contributing parties were sued in a multi-party cost recovery action under MTCA. After substantial discovery, the matter was resolved by way of a multi-million-dollar settlement that allowed the developer to recoup virtually all its damages.
Defended the Port of Seattle against a putative class action brought by taxpayers seeking to invalidate the Port’s $81 million purchase of the Eastside Rail Corridor. Plaintiffs alleged that the purchase was outside the Port’s authority, a misuse of public funds, and sought a refund of the purchase price to taxpayers. After extensive discovery, the trial court denied class certification. The trial court then dismissed all of plaintiffs’ substantive claims on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous opinion. See Lane v. Port of Seattle, 178 Wn. App. 110, 316 P.3d 1070 (2013).
Represented, along with other firm’s lawyers, Snohomish County in six consolidated lawsuits arising from the March 2014 Oso Landslide in which 43 people were killed. The lawsuits involved over forty plaintiffs who asserted claims against the County for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage. In the first consolidated lawsuit, the trial court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the County. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. The second case was dismissed by plaintiffs as a result of the outcome in the first case. See Regelbrugge, et al. v. Snohomish County, et al., 7 Wn. App. 2d 29, 432 P.3d 859 (2018).
Prevailed in putative class action brought by approximately two dozen property owners adjacent to Eastside Rail Corridor. Property owners claimed that the Port of Seattle improperly allowed the use of a railbanked corridor and that the uses interfered with property owner’s reversionary property rights. The United States District Court dismissed the case by way of summary judgment after the Port established that the named class representatives and other potential class members had failed to meet certain statutory prerequisites to maintain their claims. Ioppolo v. Port of Seattle, 2015 WL 13187674 (W.D. Wash. 2015).
Represented the Washington State and nearly a hundred of its affiliated agencies in several class action cases based on the State’s failure to provide health care benefits to part-time employees and community college instructors. The most significant matter involved a class that involved nine thousand class members and claims in excess of $577 million. A series of summary judgment motions were brought to substantially narrow the class and awardable damages so that only a fraction of original claims remained. The collection of lawsuits were resolved through a global settlement in which the State only paid a small percentage of the damages sought.
Successfully defended a local cruise company against putative class action brought by customer service representatives for unpaid wages. The cruise company employed hundreds of customer service representatives that alleged they were undercompensated based on their job duties. The case was dismissed by way of summary judgment as a result of establishing that the local cruise company, based on its international operations, was not subject to Washington State’s minimum wage law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a unanimous verdict and the Washington Supreme Court denied review. See Strain v. West Travel, Inc., 117 Wn. App. 251, 70 P.3d 158 (2003).
Represented a money transmission company in defending over a dozen separate claims, lawsuits, and proceedings brought by various private plaintiffs, state and federal regulatory authorities, and the Department of Justice. The company, financially crippled by the great recession, was beset by multiple claims throughout the United States and being actively investigated by federal prosecutors and regulatory authorities for violations of federal consumer protection laws and money transmission requirements. All matters against the company were successfully resolved, including a substantial class action proceeding brought by a national law class action law firm, through the negotiation of over a dozen agreed settlements or outright dismissals. As a result of these efforts, the principal managing member was able to wind down the company without any tail liabilities or financial exposure.
Employment
Represented the Seattle School District in a successful defense of a class action brought on behalf of over 400 employees. The class claimed that the District failed to pay contracted-for disability benefits that included other forms of deferred compensation, including retirement benefits, healthcare premiums, and “time responsibility incentive” pay. The alleged damages exceeded $40 million. After an adverse ruling by the trial court that certified the class, the District successfully appealed an interlocutory decision and used the favorable appellate decision on remand to have the claims of the class and the class representative dismissed. See Timothy Lundquist v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2021 WL 777836 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2021).
Represented a salesperson of a Fortune 500 company in pursuing claims against his former employer for breach of the salesperson’s commission agreement and wrongful termination. The company, represented by a national law firm, vigorously defended against the claim. After considerable discovery and motion practice, the case was successfully resolved with the company agreed to pay a settlement in the high six figures to the salesperson.
Defended a prominent local cruise ship company in a class action brought by hundreds of customer service representatives. The class alleged that the company violated Washington’s Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay minimum wages to crewmembers during their employment on the company’s vessels. After extensive discovery, the court dismissed the claims by holding that federal maritime preempted Washington law. The trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.
Represented the State of Washington defending claims by a class of approximately 9,000 part-time and seasonal employees for wrongful denial of healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $500 million. The case was settled in mediation following a series of favorable trial court rulings that both substantially narrowed the class and the amount of awardable damages.
Represented the president of a company that owned and operated a collegiate football bowl event in his breach of contract claims against the company. The CEO summarily terminated the president and the company refused to pay wages and other benefits owed. After a series of successful motions in the federal court, Randall obtained a six-figure judgment against the company and its CEO.
Represented a pharmaceutical employee wrongfully terminated after she became pregnant. Without filing any lawsuit, the case was resolved in a mediation with the employer that resulted in a substantial settlement for the employee.
Represented a salesperson of a major defense contractor after he was terminated and denied sales commissions he had earned under his commission agreement. After filing the lawsuit and without the need for discovery, the parties successfully negotiated a sizeable settlement with the contractor, who agreed to comply with the terms of the commission agreement.
