Case law

Grae-El v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2022

“Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the 17 moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact 18 remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of … immunity.

Collett v. Mason County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 25, 2025

immunity doctrine. … immunity doctrine.

Bjurling

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 31, 2025

immunity. 1 see Fed. … Bjurling has not 19 established that its counsel “unreasonably and vexatiously multipl[ied] proceedings in 20 coordination with [Chief Parker].” (MTA at 1.)

DeForge Maritime Towing LLC v. Alaska Logistics LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 7, 2022

The Time Charter Agreements qualify as maritime contracts because they relate 16 to ships and navigation on navigable waters. … Courts, however, 1 may use state law to interpret maritime contracts, provided that it does not clearly conflict 2 with federal maritime law.

Wilmington Trust Company v. The Boeing Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 14, 2020

Neither the mere 7 existence of a potentially dispositive motion, nor mere inconvenience and expense suffice to 8 establish good cause for a stay. See, e.g., Rosario v. … Nov. 8, 2019) (granting stay where judgment on the 3 pleadings, including the asserted shield of qualified immunity, would dispose of case and stay 4 would not prejudice plaintiff given need to address the motion on

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 18, 2024

This claim is unavailing. 6 The hearing transcript clearly reflects that both Plaintiff and the VE were duly sworn before 7 testifying. AR at 38, 56. … As 9 established in Shaibi v.

Johnson v. Del Toro

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 28, 2022

Lukkasson kept a record of the available positions and noted those for which 19 Plaintiff was qualified. (Id. at 7.) Ms. … The facts clearly 6 show Defendant considered reassignment only after considering accommodations for Plaintiff in 7 his crane operator position. (See Dkt. No. 12-2 at 13–14.)

Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of Marysville

98 F. Supp. 3d 1153 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 7, 2015

Mack emailed the City a proposed renovated floorplan that he believed would qualify the residence as a caretaker’s unit, which is a permitted use in a General Commercial zone. (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.23.) … Under the Supremacy Clause, “any state law, however clearly within a State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.’” Felder v.

Knockfierna LLC v. City of Shelton

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 1, 2025

Pl.’s Mot. at 16-19. 14 Knockfierna fails to establish that it is entitled to damages for any of these reasons. 15 1. … The City clearly stated its reasons for not 4 approving Knockfierna’s permit applications on multiple occasions. See Pl.’s Attach. 1; Pl.’s 8 Attach. 3.

Scanlon v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

670 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2009

Defendant states, “Clearly, LINA’s policy excludes coverage for deaths which are contributed to by medical conditions and are not pure accidents.” (Def. Mot. 10 (Dkt. No. 54)). Defendant submits the declaration of Mr. … State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 945 F.Supp. 396, 399 (1996) (“What generally qualifies as an ‘accident,’ as that term is used in policies providing insurance against accidental death, appears to be one of the more philosophically

Olson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 1, 2025

Under AEDPA, 16 federal habeas relief is permitted only if the state court’s adjudication of a claim “(1) resulted in 17 a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … It is not enough that the state court decision was “incorrect or 17 erroneous”; “[t]he state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively 18 unreasonable.”

Earl v. Campbell

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 18, 2020

In relevant part, the 19 Court concluded that Campbell was entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiffs’ 20 state law claims for negligence were barred as a matter of law because “a negligence 21 claim may not … At most, the evidence 5 establishes that the server was accessed in February 2016 by someone for some reason on 6 at least four occasions.

City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 30, 2023

Expert testimony is not 2 excluded for relevancy where “it speaks clearly and directly to an issue in dispute in the case, 3 and . . . it will not mislead the jury.” Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1321 n.17. … Rogoff’s second opinion does not clearly and directly address an 18 issue at dispute in this case, and otherwise runs the risk of confusing issues before the jury, it is 19 excluded.

Garret v. Materia Group LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 25, 2021

Having failed to establish all of the 22 necessary elements, Garret is not entitled to summary judgment on his breach of contract claim. 23 24 … The sum of Plaintiff’s argument on these claimed breaches is 18 that “[t]hese acts were clearly a breach of loyalty and duty of care.”

Mullahy v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2020

Dkt. 15 at 2. 14 Moreover, “as a lay person, an ALJ is ‘simply not qualified to interpret raw medical data 15 in functional terms.’” Padilla v. Astrue, 541 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1106 (C.D. … Keck’s opinion that return to fulltime work clearly may 9 exacerbate plaintiff’s symptoms, develop the record and redetermine the RFC as needed, and 10 proceed to the remaining steps as appropriate.

Roulette v. City of Seattle

850 F. Supp. 1442 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 10, 1994

The City Council could legitimately take note of the fact that nobody has been complaining about people standing or squatting outside of their business establishments. … other evidence submitted by the City as part of the legislative record, including the transcript of a lengthy public hearing as well as letters to city council members, the court agrees with plaintiffs that it does not qualify

West American Insurance Company v. American Hallmark Insurance Company of Texas

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2025

“The party seeking to establish coverage bears the initial burden of 17 proving coverage under the policy has been triggered.” Pleasant v. Regence BlueShield, 325 P.3d 18 237, 243 (Wash. Ct. … 22 2 Under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act, an employer is immune from suits seeking damages for workplace 23 injuries.

Trueblood v. Cappola

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2020

The need for discovery does not necessarily qualify the 3 issues involved in a case as “complex.” … on 7 plaintiff’s instant motion (Dkt. 46) and his amended complaint (Dkt. 9), and further evidenced by 8 plaintiff’s motions filed in this case (see, e.g., Dkts. 36–38, 47–49), the Court finds that plaintiff 9 has clearly

Cheney v. Puget Sound Energy Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 24, 2023

The removing party bears the burden of establishing that 9 removal was proper. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. … No. 22 C21-5063-BHS-MLP, 2021 WL 2211287, at *5. 1 pre- and post-trip activities to prove that they qualify for “hours worked.”

Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2023

The Court questions whether the City’s actions at issue in this case are 20 protected under discretionary immunity. … Discretionary immunity is “an extremely limited exception,” id., and 1 5.