Case law

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

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

Martinez Patterson v. AT&T Services Inc

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

In disparate treatment cases, the inference is often established by the plaintiff showing 20 that: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her position, (3) she was 21 … To establish a claim of wrongful discharge, 4 she must establish that her exercise of her rights was a “significant factor” in AT&T’s decision

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.

In re Cedar Shake & Shingle Antitrust Litigation

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 20, 2020

In this 19 case, it is not “implausibility” that mitigates against Plaintiffs – their allegations regarding price 20 increases remain insufficient to qualify as the “plus” factor that suffices to plead a price-fixing … As a result of the ruling on Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims, the Court 18 intends to exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 19 remaining state law claims, as § 1367(c)(3) clearly

Alpenspruce Education Solutions Inc v. Cascade Parent Limited

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 6, 2025

While Plaintiff is clearly targeting 12 clients who might also be interested in Defendants’ products, Defendants’ target audience is far 13 broader than Plaintiff’s. … On balance, the Sleekcraft factors do 8 not clearly favor either Party, particularly where the Court must construe the facts against each 9 non-moving party.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Kimsey

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

No. 17 at 4–6, they have failed to meet their burden to establish that the Court has 2 subject matter jurisdiction over these claims, see Britton v. … Although 6 Plaintiffs do not explain their theory of vote dilution, it appears to be based on general allegations 7 of election irregularities that affected the votes of all “qualified electors” in the County.

Williams v. Wofford

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2021

of clearly established federal law.” … established 3 precedent of Taylor.

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 21, 2020

Medical Opinions 9 “Only physicians and certain other qualified specialists are considered ‘[a]cceptable 10 medical sources.’” Ghanim v. … The review of systems clearly 21 contains default entries that Ms.

Murillo v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 25, 2020

Murillo’s petition was sent in also clearly indicates that Mr. Murillo adequately paid postage. (See Pet. at 23.) … Murillo fails 13 to identify any expert who could have offered such testimony and provides no evidence 14 that any such opinion would have qualified as expert testimony under Rule 702. (See id.) 15 Thus, Mr.

International Mezzo Technologies Inc v. Airborne ECS LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 8, 2025

Mezzo must “clearly refer to tangible 21 trade secret material” rather than a “system which potentially qualifies for trade 22 … R.S. § 51:1405(A). 15 To establish a claim under LUTPA, the plaintiff must show that “the alleged 16 conduct offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 17 unscrupulous, or substantially

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Bradrick

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

“The ‘strong presumption’ 6 against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 7 removal is proper.” Id. … their theory of vote dilution, it appears to be based on general allegations 16 of election irregularities that affected the votes of all “qualified

McCall v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

In March 2013, a doctor refused 9 to sign a form attesting to disability due to “‘IBS’ and antiphospholipid syndrom[e]” because they 10 did “not qualify” as disabling conditions. (AR 384.) … A diagnosis alone 9 does not establish a severe impairment. A claimant must show her medically determinable 10 impairments are severe. 20 C.F.R. § 416.921.

Rische v. United States

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

However, the 18 explanation Plaintiff provided in Part III is clearly an argument or “position” and it is clearly 19 … Its scope is illustrated rather than qualified by the specified 5 examples.” United States v. Graham, 309 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir. 1962). 6 4.

Waste Action Project v. Buckley Recycle Center Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2020

King County 6 does not establish that it qualifies as a “state governmental . . . agency” for purposes of the rule. 7 Nor does King County point to a statute it administers as forming the basis for any party’s claims … But the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel 5 are clearly not applicable as compliance with local land use law was never before the Court. See 6 Clark v.

Washington Election Integrity Coalition United v. Hall

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

“The ‘strong presumption’ 8 against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 9 removal is proper.” Id. … their theory of vote dilution, it appears to be based on general allegations 24 1 of election irregularities that affected the votes of all “qualified

Baum

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

overtime 8 wages to employees when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek; and (5) failing to accrue sick leave for and failing to 9 allow the usage of paid sick leave for qualifying … Second, the legal authorities Plaintiff cites in support of these arguments are all clearly inapplicable—except, perhaps, to the extent their reasoning can be adopted by analogy. See Dkt. No. 17 at 24 4–5.

PacifiCorp v. Watson

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

Only electric utilities subject to chapter 6 19.405 RCW, the Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act, qualify for no cost allowances.” 7 WAC 173-446-230(1) (emphasis added). … So in those cases, 3 standing is usually easy to establish.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 382.

Naini v. King County Hospital District No 2

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2019

(Id.) 14 Plaintiff has offered little evidence to show that the letter’s words, which mirrored the 15 judgments of many qualified doctors at Evergreen, were mere pretext. … To establish pretext, 16 Plaintiff primarily relies on the declarations of Dr. Charles Cobbs and Dr. Richard Wohns, (see 17 Dkt.

Collins v. Milliman Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 8, 2023

Dkt. # 56 at 10. 24 It is well established that experts may not give opinions as to legal conclusions. 25 See Crow Tribe of Indians v. … In considering a motion to bifurcate trial, courts have 25 weighed the factors of convenience, prejudice, judicial economy, risk of confusion, and 26 whether the issues are clearly separable. See William W.