Case Results: Seattle Civil Rights Attorney

Listed below are actual Case Results, which are representative of the results Mr. Krulewitch has obtained on other Civil Rights cases in the past.  These Case Results are provided on this website for informational purposes only.  It is meant to disclose the kind of experience that Mr.  Krulewitch has in these kinds of cases.  It is not a guarantee for the kind of a result or outcome you hope to achieve in your own particular matter.  In this regard,  please read the full disclaimer below, at the bottom of this page.

ALEX DAY v. JOSHUA VIVET, ET AL.

Practice Area: Seattle Civil Rights Attorney

Date: June 20, 2012

Outcome: $22,500 settlement for Plaintiff’s civil rights claims against City of Tukwila and Tukwila Police Officer Jonathan Vivet

Description: Police Misconduct Case prosecuted in U.S. District Court, Seattle Courthouse, involved a lawsuit alleging Federal Constitutional Violations, including a claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, and related claims, arising from an incident where client was improperly and needlessly sprayed in the face with pepper spray by Tukwila Police Officer Joshua Vivet

RUTHERFORD v. MCKISSACK, ET AL.

Practice Area: Seattle Civil Rights Attorney

Date: May 24, 2011

Outcome: Nominal Damages Verdict for One Constitutional Violation against City of Seattle and Seattle Police Officer Jonathan Chin, resulting in an award of attorney’s fees and costs of $90,042.12 by Judge Pechman, the trial judge, along with $70,000 awarded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for fees spent on the City’s unsuccessful appeal of this matter.  U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of Seattle’s petition for review ending the City of Seattle’s appeal on this matter and, in essence, upholding the verdict and award of attorney’s fees and costs.

Description: This was a Police Misconduct Case prosecuted in U.S. District Court, Seattle Courthouse, involving allegations that an Off-Duty Seattle Police Officer, Jonathan Chin, violated our client’s constitutional rights. Michael Kolker and myself were the lead trial attorneys on this important case. The case was tried before a jury in the court of the Honorable Marsha Pechman in District Court.  On May 24, 2011, the jury handed down a verdict in favor of our client, Andrew Rutherford, the Plaintiff, on one constitutional claim for exceeding the lawful scope and/or duration of an investigatory stop.  Judge Pechman awarded Mr. Rutherford nominal damages of one dollar, and then granted Plaintiff with an award of just over $90,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.  The City appealed the jury verdict and award of attorney’s fees to the Ninth Circuit and we brought in Leonard Feldman, a very seasoned and savvy appellate attorney, to be our lead appellate attorney on the appeal.  The Ninth Circuit rejected the City’ss appeal and affirmed the jury verdict and Judge Pechman’s rulings, including her award of fees and costs in this matter.  The City then filed a petition for review to the have the U.S. Supreme Court hear its appeal of this matter.  At this point, the City of Seattle changed its appellate strategy.  It sought to convince the High Court to take review and then use this case, the Rutherford Case,  to reverse a seminal Ninth Circuit Case, Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1996).  The City of Seattle was unabashedly attempting to use the Rutherford Case in a reckless and foolhardy effort to broaden the power of police officers to draw their firearms in the context of a misdemeanor traffic stop, one of the most common police-citizen interactions occurring on a daily basis.  Lambert had limited the power of police officers to draw their firearms in the context of a misdemeanor traffic stop, consistent with courts around the country. But the City wanted this important limitation on the power of the police cast aside.  We strongly opposed the City’s dangerous ploy to extend the power of police officers in this critical area of Fourth Amendment Law. Thankfully, on June 17, 2013, the U. S. Supreme Court denied the City’s petition for review, ending their appeal on this matter, and, in effect, upholding the verdict and award of attorney’s fees and costs issued by Judge Pechman in the District Court.  Thus, in effect, the City’s dangerous attempt to broaden the power of the police in this particular area of the law was turned away by the U.S. Supreme Court when it denied the City’s petition for review.

SPENCER v. HOPE, ET AL.

Practice Area: Seattle Civil Rights Attorney

Date: June 10, 2009

Outcome: $184,948.82 Judgment against Defendant Company and Defendant Supervisor

Description: Employment Discrimination Case brought in King County Superior Court involving allegations that Robert Hope, her direct supervisor, for Urban Innovations LLC, a Construction Company, committed unlawful discrimination aimed at client’s sexual orientation. The case resolved in the middle of trial when the Plaintiff accepted Defendant Company’s Offer of Judgment for $80,000. Judge Hollis Hill, of King County Superior Court, later awarded Plaintiff’s Counsel fees and costs in the amount of $104,948.82, pursuant to RCW 49.60, which brought the total amount of the judgment to $184,948.82.

Disclaimer

The Case Results displayed on this website are simply for informational purposes only. These results, while representative of the legal work of Jay H. Krulewitch, do not constitute an implied promise or guarantee that Mr. Krulewitch will be able to obtain the same or similar results on your own matter. Every case is different. Each case has its own particular facts, which, mixed with the applicable law, and a host of other factors, will effect a possible resolution of that matter. In general, no two cases are alike in all aspects. Thus, the results achieved on one case do not necessarily mean the attorney will achieve the same result, or a similar result, on a case which may have some similarities. As a result, nothing on this page should be construed as providing legal advice on your matter. There simply is no substitute for a proper legal consultation with an attorney, who can take the time to discuss your matter, in-depth, to review the facts of your situation, the applicable law, and other relevant factors, as part of such a consultation. Such consultations are best held between the attorney and you, in a confidential setting. If you wish to speak to Jay Krulewitch, please arrange for such a consultation by phone, fax, or email. Please note, though, that there is no attorney-client relationship between Mr. Krulewitch and you until such time as a proper fee agreement has been signed by Mr. Krulewitch and yourself.