Case law

Davis v. Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2022

“Government officials performing discretionary functions 12 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate 13 ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts are “permitted 1 to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified 2 immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the

Immigration Assistance Project of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

717 F. Supp. 1444 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 3, 1989

Second, the court held as irrational the INS’s distinction between applicants with duration of status visa who qualified under the INS’s “passage of time” standard and those who qualified under the “known to the government … Finally, plaintiffs seek to define more clearly the burden of proof for this category of applicants. The court once again refuses to order the INS to adjudicate these applications within three months.

Murray v. United States Attorney's Office

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 11, 2025

Because it 1 failed to qualify for emergency treatment, Ms. … First, she alleges that she is 19 disabled but does not explain what her disability is, so she has failed to establish that she is a 20 qualified individual for Rehabilitation Act purposes. Second, although Ms.

Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2024

On this record, the proposed oyster farm qualifies as a “new or 9 expanded use” of the refuge. The Service makes no argument to the contrary. … It argues that even if the complaint 4 were properly pled, the letter does not qualify as a final agency action because “no legal 5 consequences flow” from it.

Bounchanh v. WA State Health Care Authority

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 15, 2019

A plaintiff can establish a prima 4 facie case of employment discrimination by showing: “(i) that he belongs to a [protected class]; 5 (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking … Bounchanh’s disorganized, conclusory Complaint insists 14 that he suffered several types of discrimination: 15 [Bounchanh was] rejected, denied, not qualified and/or not referred to a hiring

Anderson v. Meneses

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 30, 2020

immunity (Dkt. 40) and particularly as 18 to the equal protection claim, that motion may have merit, but the decision on qualified 19 immunity is premature. … The Defendants’ claim to qualified immunity should be addressed soon, 20 however. 21 At this point, Plaintiff Malone’s constitutional claims against

Reetz v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

296 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 8, 2017

Reetz's LTD benefits, explaining via letter that she no longer qualified as disabled under the Plan. ( Id. ¶ 4 .31.) Ms. Reetz, without representation, appealed the benefit termination in May. ( Id. ¶ 4 .34.) … Evidence outside of the administrative record is considered "only when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision."

Jansen v. Cobb

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 4, 2024

Jansen’s response (Dkt. 20), they maintain 8 that because of judicial immunity, Mr. … Jansen’s claims against Mason 11 County should be dismissed because it is not vicariously liable for Judge Cobb’s actions and Mr. 12 Jansen does not establish any county policy or custom of violating his rights.

Chang

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 29, 2026

“A court evaluating a 11 claim of qualified immunity ‘must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged 12 … To the extent she seeks damages from the individual defendants, 14 that same failure entitles them to qualified immunity. Nunes v.

Silva v. Western State Hospital

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 3, 2024

In order to establish 13 an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must satisfy a two-part test containing both 14 an objective and a subjective component. … Thus, any amended complaint must 15 clearly identify the Defendant(s), the constitutional claim(s) asserted, the specific 16 facts which Plaintiff believes support each claim, and the specific relief 17

United States v. Prime

220 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2002

It was shown that the witness has [sic] a qualified expert, and he testified that the examination which he had made was sufficient to qualify him to testify as he did, and that the reason why he asked for no more specimens … This argument is clearly without merit. A solicitation to gather further data on handwriting examination is not an admission that the testimony fails to meet current requirements.

Akiyama v. United States Judo Inc.

181 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 10, 2002

The Supreme Court has also made clear that there is no “rules of competition” exception to the anti-discrimination laws: such rules are not immune from judicial review and may be subjected to the appropriate tests for identifying … met their burden of establishing a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for the bowing requirement which bears a manifest relationship to their objectives.

Siperek v. United States

270 F. Supp. 3d 1242 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 2017

In reality, all three steps of the Valerio analysis are intended to determine whether a person has a qualifying conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). … In turn, Washington law clearly dictates that, pursuant to RCW 13.50.260(6)(a) (formerly RCW 13.50.050(14)), the sealing of a juvenile, case constitutes expungement of the juvenile offense.

Becker v. Williamson

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

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, one of plaintiff’s claims—his 24 claim that defendant Joe Williamson unconstitutionally retaliated against plaintiff—has survived 1 a summary judgment motion asserting a qualified … immunity defense.

Meyer v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

530 B.R. 767 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 10, 2015

First, a party’s later position must be “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier position. … The question for this Court thus becomes whether the Meyers have- established all of the elements of their CPA claim. The elements of a CPA claim are well-established and not in dispute.

Benshoof v. Admon

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

His causes of action are numbered within 3 the complaint—46 in all—but they are not so clearly delineated as the enumeration 4 would suggest. … Thus, any amended complaint must not 9 cross-reference the original complaint, and must clearly identify the 10

Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

862 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2012

Indeed, the fixed annual interest rate of 6.875% that is set forth clearly on the first page of the Initial Interest Note is not unusual, let alone shocking to the conscience. … The Note itself, while dense, is written clearly and is hardly more than two pages long.

Morgan v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.

274 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2017

However, Hartford argues that the IGF-1 Z score is insufficient to establish a “causal link between objective medical findings ... and ‘Disability.’ ” Id. at 3. … Specifically, he stated that, despite, the lack of physical limitations, “[Morgan] clearly has fatigue and ...

Baker v. Hale

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

21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 1 It appears that the amended answer added a defense of qualified … immunity which had been omitted from the original answer.

Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 2022

Maverick concedes this interest although it contests 11 the Tribe qualifies as an indispensable party. (Id. at 14.) … Moreover, notwithstanding the equity versus 6 jurisdictional distinction, the Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss invokes tribal sovereign immunity and 7 district courts have stayed discovery and further proceedings where immunity