Case law

Hill v. Builder Services Group Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 3, 2021

Parties may delegate these issues to an arbitrator if they clearly and 8 unmistakably provide for it. Id. … Hill’s 17 assertions are true, they do not establish procedural unconscionability.

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Corporate Recoveries Incorporated

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2026

Best Food, 168 Wash.2d at 404. 12 An insurer is relieved of the duty to defend only if the policy clearly does not cover the 13 claim. Truck Ins. Exch. v. … As a result, even if the counterclaims involved 3 negligence as an element, the conduct giving rise to the alleged injuries in the counterclaims does 4 not qualify as an accidental “occurrence.”

Rivera v. Amazon Web Services Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 26, 2023

The Seventh Circuit has held that 8 such allegations establish Article III standing for a 15(a) claim. See Fox v. … The court found that, at bottom, Plaintiff’s allegations simply established that they were 1 residents of Illinois, and that a “plaintiff’s residency is not enough to establish an Illinois 2 connection in order to survive

Pluschakov

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 24, 2026

Respondents asserts that Petitioner has been detained for less 6 than six months, or within the presumptively reasonable six-month period established in 7 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). (Id. at 5.) … Petitioner also asserts that he qualifies to receive an employment authorization card. 19 (Dkt. No. 4 at 6.)

Nelson v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 12, 2025

The basis for the right is 15 “unsettled,” and the Supreme Court has identified Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 16 IV, the First Amendment Petition Clause, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and the … To establish a conspiracy pursuant to § 1983, Plaintiff must show a meeting 21 of minds to violate his constitutional rights. Franklin v.

Alaska Airlines Inc v. Endurance American Insurance Co

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

Thus, although Alaska Airlines did not yet have the Endurance Policy, it was clearly making its tender under any insurance that Huntleigh had, and on which Alaska 22 Airlines was an additional insured, which included … Endurance’s bad faith also establishes its liability 16 under IFCA, but the Court makes no ruling concerning damages.

Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 24, 2020

AR 15-92. 13 The Appeals Council denied review of Plaintiff’s claim and opted not to designate this 14 evidence as an exhibit, reasoning that the evidence did not establish a reasonable 15 probability of changing the … Plaintiff’s 19 attorney then asked the VE: 20 Q: Just to make sure I clearly understand.

Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 12, 2019

Because this is clearly less 3 than the $75,000 threshold, Defendants contend that the amount in controversy 4 requirement is not met and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 5 1332. Id. … Plaintiff concedes that the damages requested are not sufficient to establish 6 subject matter jurisdiction but argues that the Court should also incorporate attorneys’ 7 fees into its calculation.

Changsha Suda Electronic Commerce LLC v. Guangzhou Yimei Cosmetics Co. Ltd, et al.

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

Instead, 3 plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) they 4 are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of 5 … Showing that “the requested injunction would forestall” the irreparable 2 harm qualifies as such a connection.

Mayanja v. City of Shoreline

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

More specifically, a plaintiff “must plead that the 3 government’s action was ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial 4 relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.’” … McDonald 15 in its April 1, 2025 order on the basis that prosecutors are immune from civil damages 16 suits for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence. (4/1/25 Order at 10.) Having 17 determined that Ms.

Duffy v. Yardi Systems Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 2, 2024

Except as otherwise provided in this 14 agreement, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, disclosure or discovery material that qualifies 15 || for protection under this agreement must be clearly so designated before … These provisions are not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Howard v. Patenaude & Felix APC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 30, 2022

Although the Ninth Circuit treats underlying mistakes of state law as mistakes of fact, which can qualify for the bona fide error defense, see Kaiser, 989 F.3d at 1139–40; Creager, 2022 WL 2982825, at *5, P&F’s misunderstanding … Wash. 14 Feb. 27, 2019) (“Generally, Washington law establishes that an attorney is immune from litigation 15 by an opposing party for actions taken on behalf of a client against that party, under the doctrine 16 of

Strandquist v. Washington State Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2025

Plaintiff contends that 22 this evidence establishes that Defense counsel’s closing statements sufficiently confused the jury 23 on the law, which caused the mistrial. … Strandquist to get the vaccination, that can 8 qualify, potentially, as a reasonable accommodation.” Id. (emphasis removed); see Dkt. 207 at 9 195.

Gray v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 6, 2019

USSG § 3B1.2, cmt. 3(A). 11 The Government argues that Gray fails to establish ineffective assistance because 12 she would not have qualified for a minor role adjustment based on her status as a 13 redistributor … These sworn 22 admissions demonstrate clearly that Gray was not “substantially less culpable” than the 1 average conspiracy member. USSG § 3B1.2, cmt. 3(A).

First American Title Insurance Company v. Northwest Title Company LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 23, 2023

period following a first breach of duty or instance 4 of misconduct were treated as sufficient to bar suit for any subsequent breach or misconduct; 5 parties engaged in long-standing misfeasance would thereby obtain immunity … It does not clearly reference the debt owed to the Wolphs for the purchase of property. If anything, it may 23 refer to a past debt, as it is written in past tense.

Silver Fern Chemical Inc v. Lyons

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2023

Such injunctions require the moving party to establish “not simply that [it] is 23 likely to succeed,” but that “the law and facts clearly favor [its] position.” … Specifically, Defendants argue: (1) Plaintiff has not shown 24 1 that the information at issue qualifies as trade secrets, that Defendants misappropriated

Burrows v. 3M Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 17, 2023

First, plaintiff fails to establish that 16 defendant acted willfully or in bad faith. … [shock absorber] is sized to allow for a tie off at your feet in Europe”). 11 Thus, having reviewed the record and relevant documents, the Court cannot agree with 12 plaintiff that the newly disclosed documents qualify

Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 2, 2023

A 22 constitutional claim is “not ‘colorable’, if it ‘clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for 23 the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or . . . is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.’” … “To establish a violation of § 504 of the 2 RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) []he is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2) []he is 3 otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) []he was denied

Saeedy v. Microsoft Corporation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2023

Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) as revised (May 24, 2016) (“[T]he plaintiff must clearly 2 allege facts demonstrating each element.” … Microsoft argues that Plaintiffs have not pleaded economic 13 injury and thus fail to establish standing.

Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. Creachbaum

225 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 14, 2016

A principal reason for its establishment was preservation of bighorn sheep. See id. Approximately 82% of it is wilderness. See id. … It argues that to be excludable, an action must easily fit within the exclusion and clearly have no potential for environmental impact.