Case law

Deane v. Pacific Financial Group Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2020

Then Finney was contacted by a third broker about a client who eventually ended 3 up making a qualifying offer on the property. … While all these allegations are clearly intended to insinuate 17 something underhanded and nefarious, there is not a single direct allegation that this 18 witness was solicited to terminate his company’s relationship

Greenwood v. Steele

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 30, 2023

The Court 12 explained that Plaintiff’s pleading was lengthy, confusing, contained numerous redundancies, 13 and failed to clearly articulate plausible claims for relief against all of the named Defendants. … Plaintiff complains that because of this lack of 10 training, patients with such disorders are repeatedly sent to “sick call” rather than directed to 11 providers qualified to evaluate and treat the disorders, and that

Samson v. UnitedHealthCare Services Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 13, 2023

that individualized issues 10 will defeat predominance. 11 The TCPA permits consumers to revoke their prior express consent, but “revocation of 12 consent must be clearly … United then argues that there are also state laws that 3 immunize insurers for liability for calls on particular subjects. (Id. at 18.)

Landis v. Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 19, 2019

Both parties in this matter agree that PFD qualifies as a public entity subject to 13 Title II. See Dkt. No. 19 at 5; Dkt. … In order to establish a prima facie case 7 under Title II, Plaintiffs must show that “(1) [they are] qualified individual[s] with a disability

Chinook Indian Nation v. Zinke

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

This type of 16 use would qualify as a “program . . . for tribal social and economic development” under 25 17 C.F.R. § 87.1(k) and is inconsistent with the idea that DOI never considered using the funds to 18 benefit … the plaintiffs must first 18 establish that they were deprived of an interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

Aponte v. Mason County Fire Protection District No. 16

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 21, 2022

As such, employers have the burden of establishing that exemptions to the MWA apply 17 to specific employees. (Id.) … )(A) provides that a 10 party must be solely motivated by civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons to qualify as a 11 volunteer.

Belqasim

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 28, 2025

Neither telephonic interpreter service had a qualified Tamasheq 16 language interpreter available. Id. The hearing was reset to January 13, 2025, to give 17 more time to find a qualified interpreter. … Cases is 11 applied only if the petition should be summarily dismissed because on its face the 12 claims are subject to a procedural default or are untimely; all claims are unexhausted; 13 the claims in the petition clearly

Zunum Aero Inc v. The Boeing Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2022

a per se violation.12 See Siegler, 2019 7 WL 581719, at *11-12 (stating that a viable antitrust claim “depend[s] on a defendant’s 8 anti-competitive actions vis-à-vis an established, clearly-defined market,” not one … Cal. 2020) (dismissing 2 antitrust claim where scope of the product market was not clearly set forth in complaint); 3 Allan & Assocs. Ltd., 445 F.

Eshleman

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 4, 2026

Aug. 10 25, 2025) (“While ‘no acute distress’ is not defined, it clearly does not indicate Plaintiff is not in 11 pain.”). … Weinberger, 522 9 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1975) (recognizing that an ALJ is not qualified as a medical expert). 10 4.

Allbert v. HAL Nederland NV

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

Second and Third Claims: Negligence 4 “The elements to establish a claim of negligence under maritime law are the same 5 as the elements of negligence under common law,” and a plaintiff … given Plaintiff’s actions onboard the vessel, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s 14 well-pleaded factual allegations as true, see Usher, 828 F.2d at 561, and Plaintiff has 15 alleged that the vessel’s doctor was not qualified

Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2023

Despite these unambiguous 10 preservation requests, and a well-established legal duty to preserve all text messages 11 relevant to the litigation, City officials deleted several thousand text messages from the 12 CHOP … W., Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 766 (9th Cir. 2015), and must 3 show, at a minimum, that (i) the evidence at issue qualifies as ESI, (ii) the ESI is “lost” 4 and “cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,”

Hamadi v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish he or she meets or equals any 18 of the impairments in the listings. Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098. … “A generalized assertion of 19 functional problems,” however, “is not enough to establish disability at step three.”

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

The 1 ALJ clearly erred because he relied on Plaintiff’s GAF scores as evidence of her functional 2 limitations. Moreover, as Dr. … In this case, the answer is clearly no.

Rieman v. Gilbert

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 14, 2020

In exchange for immunity, 22 Bremmer told police that he witnessed Rieman brutally murder Adkins on the night of July 5. 23 According to Bremmer, Rieman fought violently with Adkins aboard the Tiger, putting his head … However, 16 because Washington’s one-year statute of limitations had expired, Rieman had to qualify for an 17 exception in order to present his claim. Dkt. #13, Ex. 2.

Brown v. Mason County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 7, 2021

Id. 22 Regarding subsection (d), a finding is clearly erroneous “when, although there is 1 evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm 2 conviction that a mistake has … Under this interpretation, “[t]he stockpiling of gravel and removal and hauling 10 of gravel from such stockpiles without any ground extraction does not qualify as mining 11 and/or gravel extraction.”

Promedev LLC v. Wilson

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

Such words are given their 10 “ordinary, usual, and popular meaning unless the entirety of the agreement clearly 11 demonstrates a contrary intent.” Id. … Pillsbury Non-Qualified Pension Plan, 458 F.3d 12 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2006); and then citing Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 13 2d 1083, 1101 (W.D. Wash. 2011)).

Bennett v. T-Mobile USA Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 22, 2024

Assuming without deciding that this qualifies as a proper 9 challenge to the delegation provision, Bielski, 87 F.4th at 1011, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that 10 the T-Mobile T&Cs’ delegation provision is so … These irresolute assertions fail to 16 constitute the unequivocal denial required to establish a genuine dispute of fact.

Tyajah Williams v. Recovery Innovations Inc. et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026

6 (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job; (2) the employee was qualified … May 9, 2006) (affirming summary 9 judgment for the employer when the plaintiff’s request for an accommodation was “clearly 10 grounded on his desire to avoid working under [his supervisor]”). 11 Here, Plaintiff

Sarwari

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2026

There is simply nothing in Zinermon that could plausibly 12 support Respondents’ statement that “Petitioner’s re-detention qualifies as a special case due to 13 his ATD violations.” Dkt. … For example, the Order of Release on Recognizance does not 22 clearly require Petitioner to submit to home visits. See Dkt. No. 6-4.

State of Washington v. US Department of Homeland Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 10, 2020

A state is entitled to such 10 “special solicitude” when its suit against a federal agency (1) involves the “proper 11 construction of a congressional statute,” (2) does not purport to “immunize [state] 12 citizens … let alone offer a reason to dismiss, two of the 19 State’s five accusations, namely that the “courthouse arrest” policy is incompatible with federal laws “requiring certain non-citizens to appear in state courts to qualify