Matt Davis’ Claims: True or False?

Following the previous post, Trial Date Update, attorney Matthew Davis made comments via facebook which we have quoted as “Claim #” and then compared with legal documents and articles.  You are invited to also decide if these are true or false.

Claim #1: “Any lawyer worth a damn will make every effort to avoid litigation and will file a lawsuit only when absolutely necessary.” 

From March – April 20, 2020, three options were before the HOAG (Homeowners Advisory Group):

1. Mediation – Opposing parties meet with neutral person who assists with negotiating their differences.
2. Arbitration – Parties agree to one (or more) arbitrators who make a binding decision on their dispute.
3. 2018 RCW Law for HOA/COA’s – This law includes homeowners voting on their annual budget.

Each of these was considered by the HOAG on behalf of Homestead homeowners, with the 3rd option presented by Seth Woolson, a real estate lawyer (HOAG Update #6, April 2020).  Mr. Woolson explained that applying the RCW law would take a few months as compared to a class action lawsuit that would take years. Unfortunately, not one of these options was implemented, making Mr. Davis’ statement false, as the lawyers did not make “every effort” (or any effort?) to avoid litigation. 

Claim #2: “The defendants have consistently resisted setting a trial date.”
Aug. 29, 2022, Motion for Trial Scheduling Conference – The following quotes are from plaintiff lawyers’ document they authored, signed, and filed in court, which was attached to email. 

On page 2, lines 18-20  in the legal document, Mr. Davis included a quote from one of 18 Paradise’s two attorneys, stating:  “However, by my count, there are at least 3 dispositive motions pending and we need the court’s input on what claims remain before we prepare for trial.  We simply don’t see how it makes any sense to set a trial date when a substantial portion of the remaining claims are hanging in the balance.”

Explanation: The “court’s input” means the judge’s decisions.  A “dispositive” motion is meant to “dispose” of the case or portions of it, in advance of the trial. The defendant lawyer is explaining that with “at least 3” outstanding motions for the judge to still rule on, and without knowing what the judge will decide on any of these, how can they adequately prepare for trial? 

Preparing for trial is a massive expense in time and money, with hiring experts, preparing witnesses, and knowing in advance which strategies will be used for which arguments. But most important, their own document clearly shows it’s not the defendants who are holding up the trial, but the judge, so this claim is false.  Why didn’t Mr. Davis just say so? 

Claim #3: The Chamber of Commerce’s study is not a true study because it opposes all lawsuits against businesses.
Let’s agree to disagree on this organization’s advocacy for American businesses (which we support) and quote another empirical study of class action lawsuits done by Jones Day, a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 42 offices across five continents.  Here are their findings with link below:

“Our Jones Day White Paper published in April 2020, “An Empirical Analysis of Federal Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements (2010–2018)” analyzed data showing that lawyers—not class members—frequently are the ones primarily benefitting from monetary settlement awards. 

The new data show that: 

1. Typically only a small fraction of class members receive any monetary benefits from the settlements; 
2. After the amendments to Rule 23, some courts continue to approve class action settlements without key data about take rates;
3. In claims-made settlements, class members as a whole receive on average less than 30% of any monetary award.

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2021/07/update-an-empirical-analysis-of-federal-consumer-fraud-class-action-settlements-(20192020)

Mr. Davis added, “class action settlements totaled over $4 billion in 2020” which seems to imply class members win big in class action lawsuits.  We checked class action settlement totals after 2020 and found they’ve been decreasing, with $1.8 billion in 2021, and $1.4 billion in first half of 2022.  But according to the studies by Jones Day law firm above, these big numbers are only relevant to the lawyers who remain the primary winners of settlements, not class members. 

Claim #4: “Why do you say that Tom Staehr is the director of our HOA?  There is no HOA.  Tom Staehr has no power.”
Our answer is another question: Why does the Attorney General’s office for the state of Washington have an HOA (or what you call a “non-profit corporation” named “Homestead Owners Association”) filed in their office?  And why is David Andersson listed as “Registered Agent” and “Governor” with Tom Staehr’s email under “Principal Office?”

Why has this “non-existent” HOA been renewed each year since 2020 by David Andersson and Tom Staehr, requiring them to send money to the Attorney General’s office? You’re claiming Mr. Andersson filed and paid for “just an idea” in January 2020?  Were you present at the HOAG meeting when Mr. Andersson informed everyone in the room he had filed an HOA on their behalf, saying, “I paid your $50, you’re welcome.” 

This claim is false as Mr. Davis, in his own opt-out letter of Dec. 2021, said, “…and if you own Homestead property, you already are a member of the HOA.” But in 2022, there is now no HOA???