prima facie defense in Washington

2026“Where a party fails to provide evidence of a prima facie defense and fails to show that its failure to appear was occasioned by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, there is no equitable basis for vacating judgment.” Id. at 706 . 1.

2026See Little, 160 Wn.2d at 704 (Generally, “a party who moves to set aside a judgment based upon damages must present evidence of a prima facie defense to those damages.”).

2026Where a party can demonstrate at least a prima facie defense, however, “the reasons for [its] failure to timely appear in the action before the default will be scrutinized with greater care.” Id. at 352-53 .

2024On the other hand, where the moving party is able to properly demonstrate at least a prima facie defense, the reasons for failing to timely appear in the action before the default “will be scrutinized with greater care.” Id. at 353 .

2023Id. 14 Internal quotation marks omitted. 17 No. 84852-6-I (consol. with Nos. 84853-4-I, 85000-8-I, 85001-6-I)/18 A. Prima Facie Defense D.L. argues that the trial court erred by finding she failed to show a prima facie defense.

2007See, e.g., Cash Store, 116 Wash.App. at 841-42 , 68 P.3d 1099 . *1279 ¶ 24 In Pfaff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 103 Wash.App. 829 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000), this court held that, in determining whether there exists evidence to support a prima facie defense, "the trial court must take the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the movant." Pfaff, 103 Wash.App. at 835 , 14 P.3d 837 .

2024Id. at 446 . 11 No. 56934-5-II A party moving to vacate under CR 60(b)(1) must show that (1) there is substantial evidence supporting a prima facie defense, (2) the failure to timely appear and answer was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, (3) the defendant acted with due diligence after notice of the default judgment, and (4) the plaintiff will not suffer a substantial hardship if the default judgment is vacated.

2024A party moving to vacate under CR 60(b)(1) must show that “(1) there is substantial evidence supporting a prima facie defense; (2) the failure to timely appear and answer was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) the defendant acted with due diligence after notice of the default judgment; and (4) the plaintiff will not suffer a substantial hardship if the default judgment is vacated.” Id. at 448-49 (citing Little, 160 Wn.2d at 703-04 ).

2007See, e.g., Cash Store, 116 Wash.App. at 841-42 , 68 P.3d 1099 . *1279 ¶ 24 In Pfaff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 103 Wash.App. 829 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000), this court held that, in determining whether there exists evidence to support a prima facie defense, "the trial court must take the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the movant." Pfaff, 103 Wash.App. at 835 , 14 P.3d 837 .

2007See, e.g., Cash Store, 116 Wash.App. at 841-42 , 68 P.3d 1099 . *1279 ¶ 24 In Pfaff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 103 Wash.App. 829 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000), this court held that, in determining whether there exists evidence to support a prima facie defense, "the trial court must take the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the movant." Pfaff, 103 Wash.App. at 835 , 14 P.3d 837 .

2025“A challenger has the burden to establish a prima facie violation of the right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community.” Id.

2025Under that test, a prima facie violation requires proof of three elements: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 19 (applying Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 366 ).

2025Under that test, a prima facie violation requires proof of three elements: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 19 (applying Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 366 ).

2025Under that test, a prima facie violation requires proof of three elements: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 19 (applying Duren, 439 U.S. at 364, 366 ).

2024App. 829, 834 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000). 7 A defendant moving to vacate a default judgment against it “satisfies its burden of demonstrating the existence of a prima facie defense if it is able to produce evidence which, if later believed by the trier of fact, would constitute a defense to the claims presented.” TMT, 140 Wn.

2007App. 829, 835 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000), this court held that, in determining whether there exists evidence to support a prima facie defense, “the trial court must take the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the movant.” Accord Showalter, 124 Wn.

2017In Calhoun, Division Three of this court highlighted the difficulty a defendant in a personal injury 10 No. 49597-0-II action has in showing a prima facie defense to a general damages award without the opportunity for discovery. 46 Wn.

2017The court concluded, “Given these circumstances, it would be inequitable and unjust to deny the motion to vacate the damage portion of the judgment on the ground that Mr. Merritt did not present a prima facie defense.” Id.

2021We review denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion.40 A court abuses its discretion where its decision rests on untenable grounds or was made for untenable reasons.41 A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to add a futile claim.42 To establish a prima facie claim under RCW 21.20.010, a plaintiff must demonstrate, at least, “‘(1) a fraudulent or deceitful act committed (2) in connection 39 See Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 253 , 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (“A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.”) (citing State v. Turner, 98 Wn

2021We review denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion.40 A court abuses its discretion where its decision rests on untenable grounds or was made for untenable reasons.41 A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to add a futile claim.42 To establish a prima facie claim under RCW 21.20.010, a plaintiff must demonstrate, at least, “‘(1) a fraudulent or deceitful act committed (2) in connection 39 See Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 253 , 692 P.2d 793 (1984) (“A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.”) (citing State v. Turner, 98 Wn

2020White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 353-54 (1968); Akhavuz v. Moody, 178 Wn.

2014In her response to Mednikova's motion to enter a default judgment, Morse stated, "While Defendant Mare Morse does not have a prima facie defense as to liability for causing the motor vehicle accident, [Morse does] have a defense to the damages being asserted."56 In Morse's CR 59 motion for reconsideration, the 55 See Akhavuz, 178 Wn.

2013App. 833, 848-49 , 68 P.3d 1099 (2003) (where defendantestablished only a prima facie defense and did not explain properly-served store manager's failure to forward complaint, court did not abuse discretion by denying motion to vacate default judgment); Beckman v. Dep't of Social &Health Servs., 102 Wn.

2007See, e.g., Cash Store, 116 Wash.App. at 841-42 , 68 P.3d 1099 . *1279 ¶ 24 In Pfaff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 103 Wash.App. 829 , 14 P.3d 837 (2000), this court held that, in determining whether there exists evidence to support a prima facie defense, "the trial court must take the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the movant." Pfaff, 103 Wash.App. at 835 , 14 P.3d 837 .

2026Rather, the requirement of a prima facie defense to the claim has the purpose of “avoid[ing] a useless subsequent trial if the defaulted defendant cannot bring forth facts to make such a showing when seeking to vacate the default.” Griggs, 92 Wn.2d at 583 .

2024In other words, the rule “avoids a useless subsequent trial if the defaulted defendant cannot bring forth facts to make such a showing when seeking to vacate the default.” Id. 7 No. 86090-9-I/8 “[T]he defendant satisfies its burden [to establish a prima facie defense] . . . if it is able to produce evidence which, if later believed by the trier of fact, would constitute a defense to the claims presented.” TMT Bear Creek Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., 140 Wn.

2020This leaves the two primary factors, (1) whether Packard has identified evidence to support at least a prima facie defense, and (2) whether Packard’s failure to appear was due to excusable neglect or was not willful. 4 Showalter v. Wild Oats, 124 Wn.

2008Showalter, 124 Wash. App. at 512 , 101 P.3d 867 . ¶ 25 Here, Nightrunners baldly states that it presented a prima facie defense, but it does not explain how the facts support a legally cognizable defense.

2026When the moving party does not satisfy the second White prong, its argument can be “doom[ed] . . . despite the presence of a prima facie defense.” DeCaro v. Spokane County, 198 Wn.

2026When the moving party does not satisfy the second White prong, its argument can be “doom[ed] . . . despite the presence of a prima facie defense.” DeCaro v. Spokane County, 198 Wn.

2020App. 506, 510-11 , 101 P.3d 867 (2004). 5 Little, 160 Wn.2d at 703 -04 (citing White v. Holm, 73 Wn.2d 348, 352 , 438 P.2d 581 (1968); Showalter, 124 Wn.

2008Showalter, 124 Wash. App. at 512 , 101 P.3d 867 . ¶ 25 Here, Nightrunners baldly states that it presented a prima facie defense, but it does not explain how the facts support a legally cognizable defense.

2017While we have not addressed how presumptions in statutes such as RCW 51.32.185 should be treated, other jurisdictions have done so and have applied the Morgan theory to analogous "firefighter statutes." For example, the New Hampshire Supreme Court analyzed an analogous statute, which stated, '" [T]here shall exist a prima facie presumption that heart or lung disease in a firefighter ... is occupationally related."' Cunningham, 129 N.H. at 23 5 (quoting former N.H.

2017A broader consideration of the policy behind RCW 51.32.185 shows that the legislature did not intend the presumption to simply vanish on production of some rebuttal evidence. ¶38 While we have not addressed how presumptions in statutes such as RCW 51.32.185 should be treated, other jurisdictions have done so and have applied the Morgan theory to analogous “firefighter statutes.” For example, the New Hampshire Supreme Court analyzed an analogous statute, which stated, “‘[T]here shall exist a prima facie presumption that heart or lung disease in a firefighter . . . is occupationally related.’ ”

2025Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 501-02 .

2025Kumar, 180 Wn.2d at 501-02.