Case law

Kirkham v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2025

Regardless of 4 whether a claim is brought against a county or a private entity acting under color of state law, 5 Monell requires that a plaintiff establish a direct causal link between an official policy held by 6 … If Plaintiff wishes to pursue alternative theories of liability arising out 8 of the same transactions and occurrences, he must clearly specify which factual allegations apply 9 to each claim against the defendants.

Dahlstrom v. Life Care Centers of America Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 1, 2023

immunity. … When a plaintiff 8 does not plead the facts necessary to determine a qualified immunity defense, the district court 9

Lakeview Financial Inc v. State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 21, 2021

See id. 20 Lower courts have stated this more clearly: the mere “possibility that a state proceeding may lead 21 to a future prosecution of the federal plaintiff is not enough.” Mulholland v. … a credible threat of prosecution and establish 20 injury-in-fact.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Telecare Mental Health Services of Washington Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 23, 2024

others in a friendly, positive and courteous manner” and “interacting with guests and delivering Beyond the Best service” were “essential functions”; and whether a plaintiff who had “difficulties in 26 communicating clearly … ” and who made “inappropriate comments to guests” was qualified to perform such functions.

Lyons

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 25, 2026

(3) Plaintiff had not established by a 14 preponderance of the evidence that Defendants committed tortious interference with business 15 expectancy (id. at 9); and (4) Plaintiff had not established by a preponderance … Information 19 Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not “clearly refer to tangible trade secret

Kamradt v. Esurance Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2023

In its reply in support of its affirmative motion, Defendant 24 responds to Plaintiff’s LCR 7(b)(2) argument by noting that its motion to compel clearly indicates an intent to oppose Plaintiff’s motion and fully briefs … prejudice, Plaintiff’s COVID-related concerns are not generalized but 20 specific to her unique circumstances as a “Certified Behavior Technician [who] works with 21 autistic children, some of whom have compromised immune

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation

289 F. Supp. 2d 1230 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 18, 2003

. *1237 Pursuant to this rule, a witness qualified as an expert in “scientific .. knowledge” may testify thereto if “(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles … As established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v.

United States of America v. Sea-Mar Community Health Center

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

Sea Mar is a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) 3 Sea Mar is a FQHC authorized under federal law. … Facility specific encounter rates are established for each FQHC and are paid for 11 services eligible for an encounter payment.

Leyva v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 11, 2022

Once the party seeking discovery 3 has established the request meets this relevancy requirement, “the party opposing discovery has the 4 burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying … The work product doctrine, by contrast, is a procedural immunity and is therefore 6 governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Union Pacific R. Co. v.

Horman v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 30, 2020

This comparative element is not necessary, however, to establish a prima facie 4 case under McDonnell Douglas. Mikkelsen v. Pub. Util. Dist. … In particular, Horman “fails to clearly articulate what duty she would have us impose on her employer” given the fact that “[t]here is no duty for an employer to provide employees with a 1 dismisses Horman’s fourth,

Oatway v. Experian Information Solutions Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2025

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). 4 To establish that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed, the movant can either cite the record 5 or show “that the materials cited do not establish the . . . presence … If there is an inaccuracy, “the plaintiff must establish that the investigation was 1 unreasonable.” Id.

Latimer v. AT&T Mobility LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 1, 2022

Latimer 10 must establish “a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.’” Lyons, 461 U.S. 11 at 111 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501 (1974)). … United States, 862 20 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988) (dismissing with prejudice nonetheless because sovereign immunity 21 provided an absolute bar to suit).

Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 2025

According to the FTC, this was accomplished by failing to disclose the material terms of 8 the subscription clearly and conspicuously and by … See id.; see also Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (“Lack of certainty is not, 21 for a qualified expert, the same thing as guesswork.”). Mahoney used data that was collected 22 from Defendants and by Defendants.

Whitworth v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 16, 2021

Whitworth’s counsel to clearly lay out his arguments 13 with citations to both the record and applicable legal authority as support. See Indep. 14 Towers of Wash. v. … Nor does 5 the fact that USAA CIC did not fully cover the physical therapy sessions qualify as bad 6 faith. Mr.

Duett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 11, 2022

State Farm objected, asserting that the information 21 sought is protected under the work product doctrine: 22 [S]eek disclosure of immunized work product. … “To qualify for work-product protection, documents 11 must: (1) be prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and (2) be prepared by or for another 12 party or by or for that other party’s representative.”

Young v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 2, 2022

However, when “clearly acting as coverage counsel and 23 advising the insurer of its potential for liability, the communications will likely be privileged.” 1 Id. See also id. … July 12, 2018) (“AFM 16 has not established solely through its declarations that the above exception to the Cedell rule 17 applies . . . .”); Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 980 F.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 21, 2022

The Court may review the ALJ’s 21 failure to comply with the Commissioner’s own regulations for legal error applying a clearly 22 erroneous standard. See Molina v. … F.E.R.C., 464 F.3d 861, 868 (9th Cir. 2006) 1 (“[I]t is well established that an agency’s interpretation of the intended effect of its own orders is 2 controlling unless clearly erroneous.”

Homesite Insurance Company v. Schlackman

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 1, 2023

Campbell would 12 have to establish that she entered into an “agreement to establish the conspiracy,” which would 13 require a showing of intent. Dkt. # 11 at 8-9, 15, 20. … App. 838, 855, 866 (1992), the Court finds that plaintiff has not clearly 16 established the absence of an “occurrence” with regard to the Underlying Complaint’s drug 17 trafficking allegations. See Allstate Ins.

Mendy v. Larson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 2, 2025

First, they contend that 16 they cannot be held liable for Mendy’s claims because they do not qualify as housing providers 17 under the FHA. Dkt. No. 124-1 at 6–7. … App'x 300, 306–07 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Although [the employer’s] actions, including the erroneous . . . accusation [that plaintiff caused a meningitis exposure], and perceived better treatment of others clearly upset

Dries v. Sprinklr Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 16, 2020

And despite 17 Dries’ contention his offer letter in conjunction with the VCP and Terms formed a valid contract, 18 Dries’ offer letter also clearly disclaimed it intended to form a contract. (See Dries Decl., Ex. … Washington courts are “reluctant” to apply “the 11 procuring cause rule to cases involving a clearly written employment contract.” Mr. 99 & 12 Associates, Inc. v. 8011, LLC, 197 Wash.App. 1021, 1028 (Wash. App.