Case law

Lane v. Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2020

Additionally, there is no evidence 12 the State of Washington has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts. 13 Therefore, the Washington Department of Corrections for Women, as an arm of the state, cannot … This causal link is established either by the direct personal participation of the supervisor 11 or by the supervisor’s initiation of a “series of acts by others which the actor knows or 12 reasonably should know would

Arias

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 17, 2025

immunity. … Claim 6: Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process 18 The Court previously held Plaintiff failed to identify a “clearly established liberty or 19 property interest in continued participation in an academic

United States v. State of Washington

626 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 1, 1985

Certain tribes, including the Quinaults, have qualified as "self-regulating." … Fourteen of the Tribal attorneys so qualify.

Aguda v. Ohara

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2022

Aguda’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 17 was granted because he financially qualifies for that status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 18 Dkt. No. 5. … Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff Aguda’s initial complaint had failed to 22 establish any basis for the Court to assert subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. Id.

Holzberg v. Astrue

679 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2010

Lewy also found that the evidence in the record did not establish the presence of the “C” criteria for Listing 12.04. Tr. 537. … The vocational expert’s testimony must be reliable in light of the medical evidence to qualify as substantial evidence. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir.1988).

United States of America, Ex rel. Raju A.T. Dahlstrom v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 15, 2019

The court concluded that Defendants failed to establish that the other Defendants 19 shared in the Tribe’s sovereign immunity. … Dahlstrom is so qualified. In any event, Mr.

United States v. Sischo

262 F. 1001 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 22, 1919

For “capable” Webster gives as synonyms: “Susceptible; competent; qualified; fitting; possessing legal power or capacity.” … Before it can be given such effect, it must clearly so declare. This section 8801 f does not do.

Maehren v. City of Kirkland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 8, 2024

Thus, Defendants did not “fail[] to provide due process” by denying Plaintiffs’ 4 a hearing examiner because Plaintiffs clearly had the right to … “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that 11 removal is proper.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 12 (9th Cir. 2009).

Johnsen v. Harlan

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 10, 2019

Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Defendant Harlan does not dispute that “pretrial detainees have a clearly established … Harlan cites a 8 number of cases involving high speed chases and life or death situations where courts have 9 immunized officers who had to make snap judgments. See County of Sacramento v.

City of Centralia v. United States Nat. Bank

221 F. 755 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 1915

Upoii the present showing, the complainant clearly had the right to apply the payment made by the bonding company as it did. … The relief sought was that a lien be established on account of the deposited funds “upon all the moneys, dioses in action, and other property in said bank.”

Saade v. State of Washington Department of Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2019

Thus, the Court does not address the issue of 21 whether the Bellevue Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this time. 4 These claims are dismissed without prejudice because there could be criminal proceedings … against 4 Defendant Fenimore in his individual capacity is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 “Conspiracy is not itself a constitutional tort under § 1983 . . . mere proof of a 6 conspiracy is insufficient to establish

First Bank v. Exodus

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 8, 2022

(Id.) 9 Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that: 1) Plaintiff has failed to establish 10 … Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 26 27 1 Defendants clearly seek relief pursuant to Rule 56(d), which was formerly Rule 56(f). 1 547, 549 9th Cir. 1994)

REX - Real Estate Exchange Inc v. Zillow Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2022

A plaintiff must clearly allege 14 facts demonstrating every element of standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. … Under the Noerr-Pennington 4 doctrine, “those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally 5 immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct.” Sosa v.

First Bank v. Exodus

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2022

(Id.) 8 Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that: 1) Plaintiff has failed to establish 9 that they are entitled to the late fees included in Defendants’ … Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 23 24 1 Defendants clearly seeks relief pursuant

Wright v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2022

No. 33-3), “[t]he work-product 16 rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and 17 tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” … “‘More than the mere possibility of litigation must be evident’ for material to be 2 considered immune from discovery under the work-product doctrine.” Heath, 221 F.R.D. at 549 3 (quoting Detection Sys., Inc. v.

Jackson v. The Kroger Co

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 14, 2025

If 1 the defendant has a qualified privilege, the plaintiff must establish an abuse of that qualified 2 privilege to recover. … In order to establish an abuse of a qualified privilege, there must be “proof of 3 knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of a statement”—in other words, “actual malice.” 4 Id. at 503.

Amrani v. US Bank Trust NA

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2019

Pa. 1978) (noting that original jurisdiction 15 does not mean exclusive jurisdiction and that state and federal courts had concurrent jurisdiction). 16 The Court also notes that Defendant does not clearly establish … action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 10 Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous because it is indemnified for certain actions 11 but does not explain why indemnification should be applied as immunity

Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.

562 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 20, 2008

Patent Law to effectively grant immunity to all Microsoft products for any potential contributory infringement liability.” Veritas’ Response at 20. … Such uses are clearly substantial and are clearly non-infringing. Id. at 55 . Mr.

Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

203 F.R.D. 601 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 5, 2001

Although it is unclear how many potential class members exist, the plaintiff alleges 4,000 people, which clearly meets the standard. Complaint at ¶ 12; see also Leyva v. … Instead, the inquiry must focus on the law and facts “that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623 , 117 S.Ct. 2231 .

Doe v. Microsoft Corporation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 19, 2023

Such notice, the 22 court concluded, was too generalized to establish consent. Id. … The Court rejects this argument in 24 light of “clearly established circuit practice allowing plaintiffs to plead in the alternative at the earliest stages of litigation.” Haas v. Travelex Ins. Servs. Inc., 555 F.