On Friday, September 20, 2024, both MJ Management and the Plaintiffs filed Motions for Reconsideration of Judge David Freeman’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on September 11, 2024, in the much-contested Homestead Litigation (Hillius, et al. v. 18 Paradise, LP, et al.). 

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration addresses a wide range of topics where attorney Matthew Davis argues the court’s order was “inadequate and inappropriate,” and further goes on to say that the court’s decision was based on facts “not on (sic.) evidence presented at trial.”  “[M]any, if not most of those findings, lack any evidentiary basis from trial or are simply wrong,” argues attorney Davis in his brief to the court (see below). The 11-page Motion for Reconsideration argues that the court had reversed itself from its oral ruling at the July 3, 2024, hearing; because the court had “used [plaintiff’s version of the proposed orders] to announce its decision in the case…” and “chose to use the plaintiff’s proposed findings as the basis for its oral decision…”  and now believes the plaintiffs are “entitled to an explanation.” The court ultimately adopted the form of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, jointly submitted by MJ Management, 18 Paradise, and the Intervenors for its ultimate decision. In concluding its motion for reconsideration, attorney Davis challenges the court’s decision to terminate his and attorney K. David Andersson’s representation of the class members with the entry of the orders. 

In contrast, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by MJ Management (see below) focuses on a narrow issue related to the court’s decision that found the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Master Declaration to be void. The motion focuses on the evidence presented at trial and the weight the court placed on deposition testimony as opposed trial testimony of multiple witnesses that testified that MJ Management had authority under the terms of its agreements with 18 Paradise to record those amendments. 

In addition to MJ Management’s Motion for Reconsideration, the attorneys also filed a Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs on behalf of Mick O’Bryan and Josh Williams. These two individuals had originally been voluntarily dismissed from the case by the plaintiffs, when the Plaintiffs had filed their Third Amended Complaint, but were brought back into the case in January 2023 when the Plaintiff’s filed their Fifth Amended Complaint. The motion argues that plaintiffs brought O’Bryan and Williams back into the case “because they wanted to use the threat of personal liability to drive them to dismiss MJ Management’s declaratory counterclaim.” O’Bryan and Williams were ultimately dismissed personally from the case with their successful motion for summary judgment, where the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act against all of the defendants, including O’Bryan and Williams. The Motion argues that O’Bryan and Williams were the prevailing parties as to this solitary claim brought against them by the plaintiffs and are requesting that the court award them their attorney’s fees and costs, which are stated in the Motion to be $245,762.11. A hearing is scheduled on the motion requesting fees on October 4, 2024. 

It will be up to the court to decide if it will take up MJ Management’s or Plaintiffs’ Motions for Reconsideration. the court’s decision regarding the limited role that Plaintiffs’ counsel will now play leaves open various questions. Whatever the case may be, the court’s decision marks the end of a significant chapter in litigation that has roiled the Homestead community, located in Lynden, Washington, for the last four years. 

Readers can find additional information, updates, and insights at the Homestead case website.

For media questions, interviews, or any other needs, please contact [email protected].