Case law

Rapp v. NaphCare Inc

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

Nor is NaphCare’s policy, on its 16 face, clearly likely to lead to constitutional harms. … The NCCHC standards Plaintiffs cite in their complaint 9 indicate it is the standard of care for mental health staff or a qualified medical professional to 10 evaluate the mental health and placement of individuals who

Bach v. Forever Living Products U.S., Inc.

473 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 6, 2007

Expert testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified to testify on the matters at issue and the testimony is relevant and reliable. See Daubert v. … Bartlett explained that he had hired Virginia Briggs, “one of the finest business women in the West,” to coordinate the merchandising business, and that “[s]he is one of the people to whom Jonathan has spoken simply and clearly

Claude Neon Electrical Products, Inc. v. Brilliant Tube Sign Co.

40 F.2d 708 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 28, 1930

The defendants having established the 4th defense and the court so finding, while it may not be necessary to consider the 12th defense, it is not out of place to do so. … The process is one for dealing with a large class of sub *726 stances and the range of treatment within the terms of the claims, while leaving something to the skill of persons applying the invention, is clearly sufficiently

Bernard

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2026

If “the parties have ‘clearly 4 and unmistakably’ delegated questions regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator, the court 5 need not conduct further inquiries beyond the existence of the arbitration agreement.” … Bernard] bears the burden of establishing that the [§ 1] 19 exemption applies.”

Aulakh v. Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC

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

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 12 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party 13 need not establish a material issue of fact in its favor. … A 9 plaintiff may rely on direct evidence which proves discriminatory animus on its own— 10 typically clearly discriminatory statements or actions—or circumstantial evidence which 11 “requires an additional inferential

Ramirez Medina v. Asher

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 9, 2019

Ramirez was nervous about seeking DACA status since he was a non-citizen and 6 would be forced to make himself known to the Government.17 Applying would be a financial 7 burden and, to prove he qualified, he would … While the provision does not 5 “cover[] the universe of deportation claims,” the Supreme Court has opined, that “Section 6 1252(g) seems clearly designed to give some measure of protection to ‘no deferred action’

Smith v. United States of America

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

Second, Smith sought reconsideration by a al Qualified Independent Contractor, who also found that Smith owed the Medicare program the amount sought. Jd. … Plaintiff's claims clearly arise under the Medicare Act. The essence of Plaintiffs argument 13 is that HHS has improperly pursued reimbursement under the MSP statute.

Belmonte v. King County

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

10 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 11 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 12 who is immune … He must also clearly identify what his religious beliefs are and explain how following 15 a particular diet is required by his religion. 16 Additionally, Plaintiff must identify the specific

In Re Boeing Securities Litigation

40 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1998

Such small stock sales are usually held insufficient to establish motive. See In re *1175 Apple Computer Sec. … There are no specific allegations that *1178 would demonstrate that Boeing clearly had an obligation at that specific time to record the forward loss, and it chose not to do so with the intent to defraud.

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.

871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 14, 2012

As explained in footnote 10 (infra), the first factor — that she is likely to succeed on the merits — has clearly been replaced by the anti-suit injunction factors. … Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1991) (damage to reputation or goodwill, because it is difficult to quantify qualifies as irreparable harm).

Persell

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

established Federal law,” and therefore, 22 petitioner cannot obtain habeas relief on this basis. … Applicable Standards 9 To qualify for habeas relief, a prisoner in a State’s custody must show inter alia 10 that (i) he or she exhausted the remedies available in

Oppenheimer & Co Inc v. Mitchell

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2024

And where a lawsuit seeks declaratory or injunctive 12 relief, “it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the 13 object of the litigation.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. … “But, unlike the arbitrability of claims in general, whether the court or the arbitrator 6 decides arbitrability is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and 7 unmistakably provide otherwise.”

Colestock v. DeJoy

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 16, 2025

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). 11 To establish that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed, the movant can either cite the record 12 or show “that the materials cited do not establish the . . . presence … No. 55-14 at 3).19 2 Direct evidence of discrimination “typically consists of clearly sexist, racist, or similarly 3 discriminatory statements or actions by the employer.” Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co.

Stormans Inc. v. Selecky

844 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 22, 2012

While the Free Exercise Clause immunizes religious beliefs themselves, the Clause obviously cannot and does not bar regulation of all religiously-based conduct. … Furthermore, and in any event, the evidence clearly dem *1199 onstrates that the Board’s 2007 rules do target religious objectors “because of’— and not “in spite of’—their religious objection.

Spicher v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 31, 2023

If the nonmoving party fails to establish the 14 existence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 15 matter of law.” … Id. at 671 The Court 9 specifically noted that “[a]lthough an insurer is not always obligated to pay an offer that is not 10 accepted by the insured, the evidence here clearly shows that GEICO did not dispute that 11

Expeditors International of Washington Inc v. Santillana

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 10, 2023

Coregis Ins. 22 23 6 The Plans/Agreements define “Option” as “a Non-Qualified … The burden of establishing these elements under 23 Article III is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction.

Tapia v. NaphCare Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 7, 2025

Cal. 2015) (“[A]n expert does not need to specifically say the words 18 ‘medical standard of care’ if he clearly, and specifically, describes what care a doctor, operating 19 under similar circumstances as the plaintiff … Volkov is sufficiently qualified to 5 pass the Daubert test is the Court’s decision.

Bell v. The Boeing Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2022

No. 19-1 at 39. 9 Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genes play a critical role in regulating the immune system. … The uncontested facts establish that this is so.

State of Washington v. United States Department of the Navy

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

Rather, it “establishes ‘action-forcing’ 25 procedures that require agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental 26 consequences.” Metcalf v. … However, it well established that NEPA contains no “national security” or 22 “defense” exception. See, e.g., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.

Paterson v. Little, Brown & Co.

502 F. Supp. 2d 1124 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 25, 2007

One definition of "rip-off” proffejred by Defendants is "[something, as a story or film, that is clearly imitative or based on something else.” See Webster’s II New College Dictionary 956 (1999). … The agreement left • open the possibility of suing Microsoft for MS-DOS. ... provided, however, that such release and immunity shall not extend to the offering of similar DOS operating systems to others by such suppliers,