Rita Latsinova

Rita Latsinova

Rita Latsinova is a partner practicing in Stoel Rives’ Litigation group. Her experience includes complex commercial litigation, constitutional law, class actions, international arbitration and general appellate practice in state and federal courts.

Subscribe to all posts by Rita Latsinova

The Supreme Court Sides With Okanogan PUD in a Dispute Over Trust Lands

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In PUD No.1 of Okanogan County v. Peter Goldmak, Commissioner of Public Lands,  No. 88949-0, the Washington Supreme Court ended a protracted dispute about the PUD’s  authority to condemn an easement over the largest tract of publicly owned land in the Methow Valley for a high voltage transmission line   The land was granted to the … Continue Reading

A Multi Agency Drug Task Force Not Immune from the PRA

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Worthington v. WestNET, No. 90037-0, the Washington Supreme Court considered the applicability of the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, to a multiagency drug task force formed by several Washington municipalities and the federal Naval Criminal Investigation Service.  Pursuant to Interlocal Cooperation Act (ICA), Chapter 39.34 RCW, the task force was not required … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Revives a Fair Campaign Suit Against BIAW

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Utter v. BIAW, No. 89462-1, the Washington Supreme Court  reinstated the lawsuit by two retired Justices against the Building Industry Association of Washington.  The lawsuit alleged that BIAW violated the Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), by failing to register as a political committee  during the 2007-2008 Gubernatorial campaign.  BIAW, a non-profit, formed the … Continue Reading

The Washington Supreme Court Reiterates that LUPA’s 21-Day Deadline is Absolute

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Durland v. San Juan County (No. 82293-8 & No. 89745-0) the Washington Supreme Court rejected a neighbor’s untimely Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) challenge of San Juan County’s permit to build an oversize garage.  The neighbor received no actual or constructive notice of the permit’s issuance and missed the LUPA challenge deadline.  The Washington … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court Upholds the Validity of Second-Hand Service of Process

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Scanlan v. Townsend,  No. 89853-7, the Washington Supreme Court held that second-hand service of process  —  the process server delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to the home of  defendant’s father, who later handed the summons and complaint to the defendant within the statute of limitations — met the requirements of  personal … Continue Reading

Employee Bonus Invested in an LLC , Which Loaned Funds to the Employer, Is Not a “Rebate,” the Supreme Court Holds

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In LaCoursiere v. Camwest Development, Inc., No. 88298-3, the  Washington Supreme Court  construed the  Washington wage rebate act,  chapter 49.52 RCW (“WRA”).  CamWest paid the plaintiff, a former manager, several bonuses during his employment.  Pursuant to his employment agreement, a portion of plaintiff’s bonus was directly invested in a related  LLC that was established to … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court Makes Law in Attorney Malpractice Cases

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Schmidt v. Coogan, the Washington Supreme Court addressed two questions of first impression, whether collectability of the underlying judgment is an element of the plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice and whether emotional distress (ED) damages are recoverable in a malpractice action.  The Court held that collectability is not an element of the plaintiff’s claim … Continue Reading

Mental Health Parity Act Mandates NDT Under Individual Plans

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In O.S.T. v. Regence BlueShield, the Washington Supreme Court held that Regence’s exclusion of neurodevelopmental therapies (NDT) in individual policies violated the mental health parity act, RCW 48.44.341.  The Court rejected Regence’s reliance on an earlier statute,  RCW 48.44.450, which mandates NDT to children under seven in group plans only.  The named plaintiffs were autistic … Continue Reading

The Bracken Fix Upheld

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In In re Estate of Hambleton,  No. 89419-1 (consolidated with In re Estate of MacBride No. 89500-7),  the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the “Bracken fix,” a retroactive amendment of the 2005 Estate and Transfer Tax Act, Chapter 83.100 RCW.   (Prior to 2005, Washington did not have an independent estate tax and instead participated in … Continue Reading

The Long Reach of Washington’s Long-Arm Statute

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Failla v. FixtureOne Corp.,  No. 89671-2, the  Washington Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the Washington long-arm statute.  It concluded that the founder and CEO of a non-resident corporation, which had a single employee in Washington state, was subject to personal jurisdiction.   “We hold that employing a Washington resident to perform work in … Continue Reading

Investor in Mortgage-backed Securities Cannot Deduct Interest Earned

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Cashmere Valley Bank v. WA Dept. of Revenue, No. 8937-5, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the state tax deduction statute, RCW 82.04.4292 (1980). The statute, prior to being amended in 2012, provided that banks and financial institutions could deduct from their income “amounts derived from interest received on investments or loans primarily secured by … Continue Reading

No Private Right of Action Under Deeds of Trusts Act

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Frias v.  Asset Foreclosure  Services, Inc., the Washington Supreme Court held that the state law does not recognize an independent cause of action for monetary damages based on alleged violations of the Deeds of Trust Act (DTA), Chapter 61.24 RCW, when no foreclosure sale has been completed.  However, under some circumstances DTA violations may … Continue Reading

TEDRA Statute of Limitations Does Not Run Against A Minor Without a Guardian Ad Litem

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Anderson v. Dussault, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed dismissal of a 20-year old plaintiff’s breach of trust action against the trustee and her malpractice action against the attorney responsible for the trust accounting. A special needs trust had been set up for the plaintiff after she was … Continue Reading

Debt Buyers Who Solicit Claims are “Collection Agencies” Subject to WCAA

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Gray v. Suttell & Associates, the Washington Supreme Court answered the question certified by the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, whether debt buyers who purchase defaulted consumer obligations can pursue, as plaintiffs, collections actions in Washington. If the debt buyer directly or indirectly solicits claims for collection, the debt buyer is … Continue Reading

Police Dash Cam Footage Subject to Public Disclosure (with exceptions)

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Washington Supreme Court
In Fisher Broadcasting v. Seattle, five Supreme Court justices held that the Seattle Police Department  violated the Public Records Act (PRA) when it denied  a KOMO TV reporter’s request for “a list of any and all digital in-car video/audio recordings that have been tagged for retention” by officers, including “officer’s name, badge number, date, time … Continue Reading

Washington Supreme Court Affirms Firefighter’s $12.75 Million Verdict Against City of Seattle

By Rita Latsinova on Posted in Opinions, Washington Supreme Court
Last week, the State Supreme Court affirmed a $12.75 million verdict (including $2,422,006 for future care and $10 million in noneconomic damages) against the City of Seattle in favor of former Seattle firefighter, Mark Jones, who was injured when he fell 15 feet down the “pole hole” in a fire station at 3 a.m. on … Continue Reading
LexBlog