Case law

Anderson v. Liberty Mutual Long Term Disability Plan

116 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 27, 2015

Defendants argue that the medical evidence and post-diagnosis surveillance do not establish that Ms. Anderson is totally disabled. … Anderson will qualify as disabled under the Plan if she can establish that she is unable to perform, as a result of illness or disease, the responsibilities that she is normally required ,to perform in her job, which cannot

Nygren v. United States

268 F. Supp. 2d 1275 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 11, 2003

The portion of the statute which is cited clearly states that “to recover payment, the United States may bring an action against any entity which is required or responsible .. … However, Medicare’s position (as evidenced in their letters to plaintiffs) is clearly this “you received an excess of benefits and we want the excess portion back.”

Bennett v. United States

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

immunities clause. … When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to 2 dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been clearly

Rahman v. Napolitano

814 F. Supp. 2d 1098 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 9, 2011

When USCIS ultimately denied Intellibytes’s 2006 and 2007 H-lB petitions, it concluded that Intellibytes did not qualify as an employer, and that the record of evidence did not sufficiently establish the other requirements … Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084 , 1090 (6th Cir.1987) (stating that the agency should not be bound by an action that was clearly an oversight).

Cruzado v. Rogers

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

“To establish extreme and outrageous conduct, a plaintiff must show 2 that the conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all 3 possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as … That basic rule comports fully with the Supreme Court’s decision in New Hampshire: (1) the positions are clearly inconsistent (“a claim 18 does not exist” vs.

Bollinger v. Residential Capital, LLC

863 F. Supp. 2d 1041 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 30, 2012

Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529 (2d Cir.2009), which reversed Whalen and held that underwriters did not qualify for the FLSA’s administrative exemption. … An employer cannot act in conformity with Administrator guidance where the guidance does not clearly apply to the employer’s circumstances.

Hartman v. State of Washington Department of Children Youth and Families

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

Wiester ignored exculpatory, 21 “objective medical evidence establishing that no abuse was taking place.” … App. 2005). 3 “[C]ommunication to a single person or a small group does not qualify.”

Thepvongsa v. Regional Trustee Services Corp.

972 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 25, 2013

Qualified Written Request, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (e) RESPA requires lenders and loan servicers to timely respond to Qualified Written Requests (“QWRs”) from borrowers. … If the requirements established by Congress are met, the lender has a statutory duty to act: the Court will not second-guess the wisdom of the legislature’s policy choice.

Bjornstad v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery LLC

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

All redactions 15 must be clearly marked and identified. … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 12 protection, the producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 13 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Wilder v. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 12, 2021

To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against judicial officers, “[i]t has long been 24 established that judges are absolutely immune from … Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before April 13, 2021, an amended 25 complaint which clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which

F.L.B. v. Lynch

180 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 15, 2016

that the plaintiff, ás a “non-admitted” alien, had substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, but held that the individual officers involved in the “purely invidious discrimination” at issue were entitled to qualified … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time they engaged in the constitutional violations. 373 F.3d at 970-77.

McDermott v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 2025

It defines a physician as an 4 M.D. or a medical practitioner deemed by the state to have the same authority as a 5 qualified medical doctor. Id. (citing Dkt. 12-1 at 228). … McDermott’s claim that Dompe 20 “clearly satisfies” the policy’s definition of a medical doctor or a medical practitioner 21 with the same authority as a legally qualified medical doctor is not correct.

Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 3d 1196 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 23, 2019

Postmates , the court found that the plaintiffs had not established that they fell within the transportation worker exemption because they "do not cite any case holding that making only local deliveries, for a company that … Defendants argue that Washington law is clearly applicable in the event that the FAA does not apply. The Court disagrees.

Sherman v. Kruse

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2025

“To qualify as advocacy, an act must be ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 15 criminal process.’” Id. (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). … Rather, that statute merely establishes how a declarant or affiant 21 should attest to the veracity of a written statement.

Hoselton v. Washington State Department of Ecology

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 7, 2023

Eleventh Amendment immunity extends 20 to state agencies. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … constitutional immunity.

United States v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.

215 F. 436 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 20, 1914

The equitable, rule of concealed fraud, qualifying the absolute terms of the statute, was in-grafted upon it by judicial construction. … In the Minor Case the particular point in controversy was the establishment of the original fraud in obtaining patent.

Severson v. Disney

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2025

B), the Court must dismiss 10 plaintiffs’ complaints if their claims (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail to state a claim upon 11 which relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … For that reason, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the claim(s) 3 asserted, the specific facts Mr. Severson believes support the claim, and the specific relief 4 requested. If Mr.

Stirling v. Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co.

198 F. 913 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 1912

on account of the reasons first mentioned, it should not be preserved, but destroyed, it is not perceived but that the relief sought and the subject-matter of the suits are the same, or, at least, so far involved as to establish … This distinction will more clearly appear from an examination of the case of Shields v. Coleman.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Leahy

774 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2011

Zabel did not qualify as a “vendor” or as “any other party” under Section C of the policy. (Id. Ex. 3.) … The Supreme Court has established certain factors that district courts may take into consideration when deciding whether judicial estoppel is appropriate in a given case: (1) whether the party’s later position is “clearly

Arrow Reliance Inc v. Woodcock

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

The plaintiff must allege facts, not 7 mere legal conclusions, in compliance with the pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic 8 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. … an adverse publication to qualify as a sanction.