Final chapter in Huling/Gee court fight: Now, “private arbitration”

Thanks to the anonymous postal-mailer who suggested it was long past time for a followup on the Huling/Gee lawsuit. If you’re new to the area or your memory’s murky, long story short: The deal to sell West Seattle’s longtime Huling Brothers car dealerships to Spokane-based Gee Automotive was announced in January 2007 — shortly afterward, a criminal case erupted involving former Huling employees. Gee closed the dealerships less than nine months later and sued Huling, originally seeking $7 million, saying they knew and should have disclosed what was happening. Huling countersued, to evict Gee, but a deal was reached relatively quickly, and Gee cleared out as agreed at the end of November 2007. The suit against Huling proceeded, however, and WAS tentatively set for trial next month — but, as of right now, it is no longer scheduled for further court proceedings, because of a decision earlier this month to send it to private arbitration (see the court document here) to address the Gee claims and Huling “counterclaim.” Arbitration is what Huling had originally wanted, but the courts previously said no go (as reported here in November 2007) because of a certain part of the claim, seeking “equitable relief”; that part was dismissed on “summary judgment” this past November, which cleared the way for arbitration. We called Huling lawyer Randall Beighle to ask for details of when arbitration might happen and how it would be done; he said he couldn’t elaborate, but said they considered the summary judgment a “victory.”

1 Reply to "Final chapter in Huling/Gee court fight: Now, "private arbitration""

  • Near Alki February 28, 2009 (11:23 am)

    Other than “Yea for our side” I’m not sure why Huling council considers this a “victory” since “equitable relief” doesn’t seem possible since the business is now closed and all the assets have been sold. “Equitable contract remedies offer a judge an array of choices. RESCISSION discharges all parties to a contract from the obligations of the contract. The remedy of rescission restores the parties to the positions they held before the formation of the contract. Restitution is an order directing one party to give back something she or he should not be allowed to keep. These two remedies may be sought together. For example, if a buyer purchases an antique piano on credit and later discovers it is a fake, the buyer may sue for rescission and restitution. Under such a dual remedy, the buyer would return the piano to the seller, and the seller would return any payments made by the buyer.” see
    However I am NOT a Lawyer or a Lawyer in a Robe (Judge)

Sorry, comment time is over.