Case law

Pandya v. Bank of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2024

The ADA 16 prohibits an employer from discriminating “against a qualified individual with a 17 disability because of the disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … To establish a 15 prima facie case of disparate treatment under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that he 16 (1) has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he was qualified for the position; 17 and (3) suffered

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

Human Rights Defense Center v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 21, 2024

“Clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” 12 Exemption 6’s second requirement is that disclosure of the information “would constitute 13 a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … HRDC replies that this is a conclusory claim and fails “to 14 establish a particularized harm related to specific information.”

Mass. Bay Ins. Co. v. Walflor Indus., Inc.

383 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 17, 2019

Specifically, Defendants assert that the "Waterway Rainscreen" invoices that they allegedly send to their customers qualify as a "publication" under Subpart d; and when Defendants allegedly deliver a "generic black drain … Further, the extrinsic evidence Defendants rely upon to bolster their claim under Subpart f also does not establish coverage.

Brindley v. Geico Advantage Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 9, 2024

Brindley’s injuries clearly 8 exceeded the $25,000 limit. Id. ¶¶ 3.8-3.11. According to Plaintiffs, GEICO mishandled Mr. 9 Carroll’s claim, which created liability between GEICO and Mr. Carroll. … The court explained that the California “agency immunity rule” applied—”just 4 as a principal cannot conspire with itself, a principal cannot aid and abet itself.” Id. Here, although 5 Plaintiffs allege that Ms.

Rhine v. Buttigieg

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 20, 2023

Because Congress did not 17 waive sovereign immunity, the Ninth Circuit has held that Title VII does not provide subject-matter … for starting a new lawsuit based on these events, and the purposes of res 4 judicata are further frustrated by a new lawsuit on these claims clearly

Warren v. Regus Management Group LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 20, 2025

Plaintiff alleges he communicated clearly to Regus that he “needed 5 to stay under a monthly hourly allowance due to his disability and his disability 6 benefits[,]” and that Regus had allowed plaintiff to adjust his … To establish a prima facie 20 21 7 The Court notes that a hostile work environment claim is not included in the Equal Employment Opportunity

D.T. v. NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan

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

mental health condition. 20 Definition: The term “qualified mental health condition” shall mean a condition listed in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical 21 … The Plan language clearly defines 15 mental health treatment as a “covered medical expense.”

United States v. State of Wash.

873 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 1994

At trial, the Tribes presented evidence establishing areas in which they historically sought shellfish. … Id. at 776 . *1449 The facts in this case, however, are clearly distinguishable from the Suquamish case.

Cobb

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 11, 2026

Indeed, “[i]f a claimant 3 has submitted evidence of a severe impairment, we analyze an ALJ’s step-two denial by asking 4 ‘whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly establish [ … In the report, Dr. 8 Seaholm opined that his primary diagnosis of Plaintiff’s condition was “Rare Auto-Immune[,]” 9 but failed to provide more specificity.2 Id. Dr.

Coombs v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2024

The ALJ gave this opinion “very 21 little weight,” preferring the opinions of agency consultants who reviewed more comprehensive 22 records and were more qualified. … The 21 Ninth Circuit has established a three-step framework for deciding whether a case may be 22 remanded for an award of benefits. Id. at 1045.

Nelson v. Madden

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 3, 2025

Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531–34 7 (2004) (“This duty to accommodate is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process 8 principle that, within the limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals … However, the first exception comes into play only when a 8 statute “clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity” could 9 “be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state

Efimoff v. Port of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2024

The undisputed expert 18 testimony establishes that Ms. … See Dkt. 20, 23-24. 17 Counsel is not qualified to render an opinion on a matter requiring expert knowledge, and his 18 inadmissible, unsupported assertions do not establish a genuine issue of material fact.

McMillan v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 29, 2022

Providing yet 12 another opportunity to assess improperly evaluated evidence does not qualify as a remand for a 13 “useful purpose” under the first part of the credit as true analysis. … Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1041 (9th Cir. 8 2007) (“[W]e will not remand for further proceedings where, taking the claimant's testimony as 9 true, the ALJ would clearly be required to award benefits.”). 10

Robertson v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2021

Defendant posted 17 the SSVF Case Manager position and proceeded to find a qualified applicant. … In disparate treatment cases, the 18 inference is often established by the plaintiff showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected 19 class, (2) he was qualified for his position, (3) he was subject to an adverse

Kollar v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 14, 2021

The Court’s review is limited to the evidence that was before 14 the plan administrator except “when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is 15 necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review.” … before the plan administrator when it 9 rejected his separate LTD benefits claim established his disability.

Scarlett v. Doe

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2020

It is 2 entirely proper for an expert to be qualified based on his experience. … Finkleman 22 appears to have given the chiropractic records only a “cursory review,” and states that she 1 clearly communicated to Swissport that she did not intend to have Dr.

Garner

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 30, 2026

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT MOTION REGARDING TESTIMONY OF SERGE 1 (1) the witness is sufficiently qualified as an expert by knowledge … false wake range appears to be measured on a device/week basis (i.e., actual rates) while 14 15 the bottom end of the range is clearly

Cooper v. Milliman Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 22, 2023

. § 1 1681e(b), by (1) failing to establish, maintain, and/or follow reasonable procedures to 2 ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation and maintenance of his 3 consumer report and file, and inaccurately … Thomson Reuters Corp., 925 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2019)) 17 (holding that an entity must show a “specific intent” to furnish a consumer report to 18 qualify as a CRA under the FCRA).

Limantour v. Cray Inc.

432 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 28, 2006

Here, Defendants vague and opinion-oriented statements from March through October 2003 clearly fall in the category of puffery, as they are nearly identical to those in Splash. … However, portions of the statements in December 2003 and January 2004 are more factual and do not qualify as puffery.