Case law

Disability Rights Washington v. Meneses

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

A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter 7 jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 8 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. … under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that (1) the conduct 16 complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and that (2) the conduct 17 deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity

Multifab Inc v. Zweiger

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

that a customer list may qualify as a trade secret. … As 5 the Court finds Zweiger has not established beyond doubt that amendment would be 6 futile as a matter of law, the Court grants leave to amend.

Oden v. Arnold

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 24, 2025

The Court thus 21 finds Petitioner does not qualify for IFP status as he has the resources to pay the $5.00 filing fee. 22 The Court also recommends, for the reasons below, the habeas petition be DISMISSED 23 with … established law or based upon an unreasonable 16 determination of the facts.

United States v. Washington

20 F. Supp. 3d 777 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 2006

Therefore, the court finds that there is no evidence to establish that, as of the date of the Implementation Plan, the clam beds at Erlands Point qualified as “existing beds on property owned or leased by Growers licensed … The term “or otherwise” clearly refers to a manner in which the parties may agree— “by compact or otherwise.” But come to agreement they must.

Newton v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 8, 2021

To qualify for disability benefits, 20 an individual must suffer from one or more impairments that preclude all work activity, and last 21 or be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. … Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015) 22 (“Overruling precedent is never a small matter.”). 23 The new regulations do not clearly supersede the “specific and legitimate” standard.

Cohn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 6, 2026

3 the Court must dismiss a plaintiff’s complaints if her claims (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail 4 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant 5 who is immune … Any amended complaint must clearly set forth the “who, what, 9 where, when, and why” necessary for the Court and defendants to understand what Cohn is 10 alleging, and against whom. See Fed. R. Civ.

The ERISA Industry Committee v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2020

To accomplish these dual purposes, 8 ERISA established reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary duty requirements and set forth a 9 broad preemption clause “establish[ing] as an area of exclusive federal concern the 10 … The 19 Seattle Ordinance “clearly operates” to ensure health benefits for covered Seattle 20 employees. SMC 14.28.025.

O.H. v. Secret Harbor

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 29, 2025

Kraizer is qualified to render standard 12 of care opinions here. … touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for 2 the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party.” 3 The allegations in this case involve forced sexual acts that would clearly

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 15, 2024

Thus, “[h]e is qualified to provide medical opinions.” Id. 5 As to how persuasive the opinion was, the ALJ explained he gave Dr. … Wiseman’s opinions 21 does not establish that the ALJ erred in evaluating Dr.

Taylor v. Robbins

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

In addition, Plaintiff clearly states the reason given for his placement in isolated housing. 6 Id. … As explained, “Plaintiff’s mere speculation that various defendants may have read 3 his legal mail or legal documents does not establish a First Amendment violation.”

McCarthy v. Amazon.com Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 25, 2023

There are four circumstances that generally qualify: 19 “(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 20 judgment is based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously … For a decision to be considered 3 ‘clearly erroneous’ it must be ‘more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must be dead 4 wrong.’” (citations omitted) (quoting Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot.

W

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 13, 2026

As Premera acknowledges, however, “when circumstances clearly establish that additional 9 evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo … A.W.’s qualifying rating in these two dimensions, it does not consider whether A.W. also achieves a qualifying rating in the third dimension, co-occurrence of conditions, or if his composite score across all dimensions

Toler v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 12, 2021

once, and simply providing another opportunity to assess improperly 12 evaluated evidence, allowing the ALJ to have a “mulligan”, does not qualify … The medical record establishes that Plaintiff’s mental health problems went 19 undiagnosed and untreated for much of the period at issue, her

Washington Homeownership Resource Center v. Dragonfly Development Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 24, 2024

He represented to WHRC that he was qualified to handle project management 13 and coding for the portal project, and had a team of other individuals that would assist him in 14 completing the project. Dkt. … Although a contract with a forum resident 18 is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction on its own, Burger King, 471 U.S. at 468, 19 “[p]urposeful availment can be established by a contract’s negotiations, its

Sherman v. Kruse

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 1, 2024

. § 1983—the Court finds that Plaintiff has established federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. … Every person who, under color of [state law], subjects or causes to be subjected, any 9 citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of 10 any rights, privileges, or immunities

Southard v. Ballard Marine Construction Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 6, 2020

(citing Chandris, 515 U.S. at 372). 14 Over the course of Southard’s employment he describes assignments which clearly 15 incorporate duties that would invoke seaman status such as operating … jurisdiction bears the burden to establish 13 that it applies.

Alverto v. Schenk

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 9, 2020

“Pro se complaints are to 22 1 The report and recommendation did not address Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity or the 23 … Plaintiff objects on the second ground, arguing that his declaration was 11 enough to establish a connection between this incident and his grievance activity. (Dkt. No. 69 at 12 2–4.)

Karnoski v. Trump

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

Subjecting former officials decision-making processes to judicial scrutiny and 20 the possibility of continued participation in lawsuits years after leaving public office would serve 21 as a significant deterrent to qualified … Mar. 29, 2002) (“If the 23 24 1 immunity Morgan affords is to have

Baker

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 23, 2025

A court must 7 dismiss at any time an IFP complaint that is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a 8 claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant 9 who is immune … It is well-established in the Ninth Circuit that “an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.” Ramirez v.

Transfair North America International Freight Services LLC v. Top Shelf Manufacturing LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 9, 2025

Second, it alleged Transfair breached its duty of care by selecting 18 carriers not qualified to transport Edsal’s cargo. Id. at 6–7. … With its counterclaims now dismissed, 11 Edsal cannot prevail on its setoff affirmative defense because it cannot establish that it is 12 owed any debt from Transfair. See Microsoft Corp. v.