priority of action rule in Washington

2024App. 37 , 321 P.3d 266 (2014) (reversing trial court’s order denying motion to stay because the priority of action rule required staying the state proceeding until resolution of the earlier-filed, parallel suit in federal court). 5 City of Yakima v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655, 675 , 818 P.2d 1076 (1991). 6 Our cases discussing other remedies where an earlier-filed, out-of-state case is pending also establish that it is within a court’s authority and discretion to issue an equitable remedy.

2024App. 37 , 321 P.3d 266 (2014) (reversing trial court’s order denying motion to stay because the priority of action rule required staying the state proceeding until resolution of the earlier-filed, parallel suit in federal court). 5 City of Yakima v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655, 675 , 818 P.2d 1076 (1991). 6 Our cases discussing other remedies where an earlier-filed, out-of-state case is pending also establish that it is within a court’s authority and discretion to issue an equitable remedy.

2024The Applicability of the Priority of Action Rule Under the priority of action rule, “the court which first gains jurisdiction of a cause retains the exclusive authority to deal with the action until the controversy is resolved.” Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 Wn.2d 77, 80 , 633 P.2d 1335 (1981).

2024The Applicability of the Priority of Action Rule Under the priority of action rule, “the court which first gains jurisdiction of a cause retains the exclusive authority to deal with the action until the controversy is resolved.” Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 Wn.2d 77, 80 , 633 P.2d 1335 (1981).

2024App. 37 , 321 P.3d 266 (2014) (reversing trial court’s order denying motion to stay because the priority of action rule required staying the state proceeding until resolution of the earlier-filed, parallel suit in federal court). 5 City of Yakima v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655, 675 , 818 P.2d 1076 (1991). 6 Our cases discussing other remedies where an earlier-filed, out-of-state case is pending also establish that it is within a court’s authority and discretion to issue an equitable remedy.

2024App. 37 , 321 P.3d 266 (2014) (reversing trial court’s order denying motion to stay because the priority of action rule required staying the state proceeding until resolution of the earlier-filed, parallel suit in federal court). 5 City of Yakima v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655, 675 , 818 P.2d 1076 (1991). 6 Our cases discussing other remedies where an earlier-filed, out-of-state case is pending also establish that it is within a court’s authority and discretion to issue an equitable remedy.

2024Mobile, 115 Wn.2d at 316 (quoting State ex rel.

2024Mobile, 115 Wn.2d at 316 (quoting State ex rel.

2014Even Bunch agrees with this conclusion: "Bunch agrees that if either court determined an issue relevant in both actions (such as whether Nationwide engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice), the determination would have collateral estoppel effect in the other action."35 Thus, the two actions share an "identity" such that the priority of action doctrine should apply.36 Because the federal courtfirst gained jurisdiction of the issue whether Nationwide violated the CPA, underthe priority of action doctrine, it retains the 33 \± at 7. 34 See RCW 19.86.090. 35 Respondent's Brief at 16 (fir

2003“Under the priority of action doctrine, the forum that first gains jurisdiction over a matter retains exclusive authority over it.” WEA, 111 Wn.

2024App. 2d 504, 578, 416 P.3d 756 (2018) (“The priority of action rule does not automatically apply when parties file two similar cases in different counties.”) (emphasis added).

2024Brown v. Vail, 169 Wn.2d 318 , 336 n. 11, 237 P.3d 263 (2010) (“A party that offers no argument in its opening brief on a claimed assignment of error waives the assignment.”). 11 No. 85458-5-I/12 appeal, premised the same blatantly flawed application of the priority of action rule[,]” causing the trust to “incur unnecessary legal expenses.” “An appeal is frivolous if there are ‘no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of success.’” West v. Thurston County, 169 Wn.

2024Brown v. Vail, 169 Wn.2d 318 , 336 n. 11, 237 P.3d 263 (2010) (“A party that offers no argument in its opening brief on a claimed assignment of error waives the assignment.”). 11 No. 85458-5-I/12 appeal, premised the same blatantly flawed application of the priority of action rule[,]” causing the trust to “incur unnecessary legal expenses.” “An appeal is frivolous if there are ‘no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of success.’” West v. Thurston County, 169 Wn.

2021Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d 898 , 903, 453 P.3d 984 (2019) (quoting Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 1 In State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599 , 80 P.3d 605 (2003), our Supreme Court questioned ex parte presentation of orders of dismissals, noting “Although we frown upon ex parte contacts, this issue will not be reviewed because it was not properly presented to this court.” Taylor, 150 Wn.2d at 603, n.2 .

2021Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d 898 , 903, 453 P.3d 984 (2019) (quoting Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 1 In State v. Taylor, 150 Wn.2d 599 , 80 P.3d 605 (2003), our Supreme Court questioned ex parte presentation of orders of dismissals, noting “Although we frown upon ex parte contacts, this issue will not be reviewed because it was not properly presented to this court.” Taylor, 150 Wn.2d at 603, n.2 .

2019See State v. Cummings, 87 Wn.2d 612,612 , 555 P.2d 835 (1976)(charges were filed in a district court followed by an information filed in a superior court); see also State ex rel.

2019See State v. Cummings, 87 Wn.2d 612,612 , 555 P.2d 835 (1976)(charges were filed in a district court followed by an information filed in a superior court); see also State ex rel.

2019See, e.g., id. at 374-75 ; State v. Stock, 44 Wn.

2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w

2017C.P.L.R. § 304 (a) ("An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice."); see also Martin v. Martin, 38 Misc. 2d 836, 837 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. 1963) ("The summons 'is always of prime importance,' being 'the effective paper upon which jurisdiction is founded." (quoting Mishkind-Feinberg Realty v. Sidorsky, 189 N.Y. 402, 407 , 82 N.E. 448 (1907))). -5- No. 75335-5-1/ 6 courts have used this logic in applying a similar priority rule.1° And, while no Washington court has yet applied the compulsory counterclaim rule in a priority of action analysis, we agree w

2017App. 296, 302 , 153 P.3d 211 (2007) ("As the priority of action rule involves jurisdiction and res judicata principles, de novo review is appropriate."); State ex rel.