Case law

Jugum v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp.

637 F. Supp. 1045 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 24, 1986

The FSLIC’s argument appears to be that it is protected by sovereign immunity, and that Congress has waived its immunity only to the extent provided in the APA. *1047 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-703 . … Moreover, the language of this subsection is clearly directed at establishing necessary, not sufficient, conditions: “A joint account shall be deemed to exist for purpose [sic] of insurance of accounts, only if each co-owner

Chambers

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2026

Defendants argue that both are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. … A court may take qualified immunity’s two prongs “in whichever order would 18 expedite resolution of the case.” Morales v.

Limit v. Maleng

874 F. Supp. 1138 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 1994

But plaintiffs point out that defendants have shown no evidence of fraud linked to the payment per signature method of compensating signature gatherers. 3 Plaintiffs insist that, pursuant to Meyer, defendants must establish … Defendants’ contention that they are immune from any liability to plaintiff is equally without merit.

Parker v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 16, 2022

and (2) whether the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at 7 the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … Ficek violated his constitutional right, the Court need 22 not address the second qualified immunity question: whether that right was clearly established. 1 suggesting that the City’s training program was deficient or

Shopbell v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 18, 2021

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 14 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … right was not clearly established at the time.

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen

407 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2005

To establish antitrust immunity, Defendants must satisfy two elements: (1) the “challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy’ and (2) “the *1244 policy must be ‘actively … Hedlund, 813 F.2d 1344, 1351-52 (9th Cir.1987) (state’s failure to show active supervision defeats antitrust immunity exemption, making it unnecessary to consider “clearly articulated” requirement). 4.

Sanchez v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 15, 2023

Clearly Established? … For 4 purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when it is sufficiently clear that 5 every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

Medicraft v. State of Washington

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

immunity. 1 by the State; and, (2) that, in any event, the State has waived the privilege under Hearn because 2 Leuzzi asserted a qualified immunity defense.3 Dkt. 182 at 1-2. … State, 200 Wash. 2d 145, 158-59 (2022) (qualified 8 immunity not available to government entities). Therefore, the Court holds that the State has not 9 waived its privilege.

Pendleton v. Jordan

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 17, 2021

immunity defense before requiring them to engage in discovery with Plaintiff unless 10 “some limited discovery is necessary to determine whether defendants are entitled to qualified 11 immunity” in which case “only discovery … related 17 to the issue of qualified immunity, “not the broad-based discovery [Plaintiff] has thus far 18 propounded” is not well taken.

Estate of Wangsheng Leng v. Lucht

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 17, 2020

Qualified Immunity 9 With regard to a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual defendant is 10 entitled to qualified immunity if either of the following criteria … This argument is not consistent with 22 qualified immunity jurisprudence.

Tift v. Snohomish County

764 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 24, 2011

Having determined that violations of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights could be established on a favorable view of plaintiffs evidence, the Court must determine whether the right was clearly established. … The Court finds that the factual disputes prevent the Court from ruling as a matter of law that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ewalan v. Schreiber

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

by qualified immunity. … “Law is ‘clearly established’ 6 for the purposes of qualified immunity if ‘every reasonable official would have 7 understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right’ at issue.” Id.

Metz

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 5, 2026

Hoagland is entitled to qualified immunity. Even if Metz’s § 1983 claims were not barred by Heck, Sgt. … (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Doscher v. Kroger Co

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

Two questions must be answered when a defendant 16 raises the defense of qualified immunity: (1) whether qualified immunity is categorically 17 available; and (2) if qualified immunity is available generally, whether … Williams, 763 F.3d at 1009. 1 To determine whether Officer Thompson is entitled to qualified immunity requires a 2 “particularized analysis” of whether he “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory

Fletcher v. Coleman

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity 10 Defendants argue that, alternatively, they are entitled to dismissal of the claim 11 based on qualified immunity. … Unless plaintiff makes a two-part showing, qualified 12 immunity shields government officials from liability.

Bistryski v. DOC Health Services of Stafford Creek Corrections Center

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

Adams, 901 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2018), the case cited 16 in the Report and Recommendation, his objections do not defeat the Defendants’ claims for 17 qualified immunity. … He fails to point to any case demonstrating that “at the time of the alleged 18 act or failure to act, there was clearly established law that defined the contours of the federal 19 right objectively putting the officials

Green v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 12, 2024

In addition, 11 claims against many of the defendants, at least as pleaded, are invalid. 12 For example, the United States is immune, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. Tobar 13 v. … Finally, qualified immunity “shields [government officials] from civil 20 damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly 21 established at the time of the challenged

Farson v. City of Lake Stevens

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2023

When a rule is merely “suggested” by precedent, it is 16 not clearly established. Id. at 590. … Officer Wells is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on this portion 7 of Mr.

Gill v. Magan

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2021

Qualified Immunity 22 Defendants ask for the Court to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified 23 immunity. … The law was clearly 22 established that warrant affidavits could not contain reckless omissions or false statements.

Chen v. D'Amico

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

These actions are entitled only to a 13 determination of qualified immunity. … the right at issue was “clearly 1 established” at the time the defendant engaged in the misconduct.