Case law

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.

Snohomish County v. Allied World National Assurance Co.

276 F. Supp. 3d 1046 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 18, 2017

“Land subsidence” is clearly defined to include “the movement of land or earth, including, but not limited to ... landslide[s] ...” (Id, at 12.) … As has been established supra, property damage arising from wrongful acts is clearly excluded from coverage,under the ICSOP policies.

Saffo v. Owens

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2021

Cal. 3 Sept. 10, 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-84) (“supervisor defendants are entitled to 4 qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply ‘bald’ or ‘conclusory’ because 5 such allegations … do not ‘plausibly’ establish the supervisors’ personal involvement”). 6 II.

Hughes v. Puget Sound Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund

780 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 18, 2011

Disability will not be considered established until it has continued for a period of at least six consecutive months. … That provision clearly and unambiguously refers to the triggering event as when the participant is “under such disability.”

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Hall

698 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 6, 1988

The treaty clearly secures to the Tribes the right of access and the right to fish in the area now proposed to be eliminated by the construction of the Marina. … The *1520 facts and theories raised by defendants were clearly available to them at the time of the hearing and are not grounds for reconsideration.

Combs v. Smith

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2024

immunity. … Qualified Immunity 21 Defendants also argue that, even if there had been a constitutional violation, they are 22 protected by qualified immunity.

Washington Physicians Service Ass'n v. Gregoire

967 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 23, 1997

An HMO is not an insurer but a “health care delivery system”; the purpose of an HMO is described in the HMO Act: The Legislature declares that the establishment of qualified prepaid group and individual practice health care … The Act extends to entities beyond the insurance industry and, therefore, clearly fails the third McCarran-Ferguson criterion.

Grae-El v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2022

Although Plaintiffs do not describe the claim clearly in 17 their complaint, they have elsewhere characterized this claim as one brought pursuant to 18 18 U.S.C. § 241. (See SPS Resp. … [a]n agent’s 8 immunity from civil liability generally does not establish a defense for the principal.” 9 Babcock v.

Shelton v. Liquor and Cannabis Board of the State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 8, 2022

Garza, who was sued in both his 1 individual and official capacities, also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. … To 4 state a plausible § 1983 claim, Plaintiffs would need to clearly state what constitutional or 5 legal rights Defendants violated.

Jason Alan Smith v. City of Renton et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2026

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of 8 a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United … Thus, any amended complaint must not cross- 19 reference his previous complaints, and must clearly identify the claims, 20

Ellefson v. Pine Tree Harbor

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 3, 2025

Nonetheless, a 17 pro se plaintiff is not entirely immune from the rules of civil procedure. … She also fails to establish that she will suffer irreparable harm 19 absent Court action.

Caril v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 1, 2019

However, 19 because plaintiff fails to allege any facts that establish a cognizable claim under the First or 20 Fourteenth Amendment, the undersigned declines to serve plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 13) at this 21 time … However, plaintiff does not 10 clearly state who verbally harassed whom, how this restricted plaintiff’s freedom of speech, or 11 what happened.

All Blacks B v. v. Gruntruck

199 B.R. 970 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 1996

Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code establishes when the executory contracts of a debtor may be assumed or rejected during the bankruptcy process. … As Gruntruck contends in its pleadings, ABR could pursue payment for damages as a remedy for Gruntruck’s breach, which would qualify ABR’s right to relief as a “claim.”

State of Washington v. The GEO Group Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2021

As to the second question regarding intergovernmental immunity, GEO disputes 2 the Court’s application of established legal principles. … While GEO clearly does not agree with 3 the Court’s rulings on the issues presented in the proposed questions, “a party’s strong 4 disagreement with the Court's ruling is not sufficient for there to be a substantial

Pacific Bells LLC v. Inslee

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 25, 2022

Indeed, a state 20 and related entities and officials may assert Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under § 1983 and/or the ADEA, see Will v. Mich. … Long-term care insurance is not a “qualified benefit” for purposes of a cafeteria plan. Id. at § 125(f)(2).

Castillo v. Ice Field Office Director

907 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 14, 2012

which says ICE must take into custody “any alien who ... is deportable for having committed ... any offense covered in section ... 237(a)(2)(C) .. when the alien is released (emphasis added)” — is ambiguous, and does not clearly … “Because the entire section speaks of certain qualifying offenses, it is only natural to read the ‘when the alien is released’ clause to mean ‘when the alien is released from custody arising from the qualifying offense.’

Hawkins v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 19, 2024

And even if the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System 18 qualifies as a “facility” under the AVAA, Ms. Hawkins has not shown that her AVAA 19 claim overcomes the sovereign immunity bar. … Hawkins’s guilty plea establishes, as a matter of law, that she was 20 sane when she attacked her mother. (Mot. at 13-14.) The court is not persuaded by this unpublished, out-of-circuit case.

Nwauzor v. The GEO Group Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2021

As to the second question regarding intergovernmental immunity, GEO disputes 2 the Court’s application of established legal principles. … While GEO clearly does not agree with 3 the Court’s rulings on the issues presented in the proposed questions, “a party’s strong 4 disagreement with the Court's ruling is not sufficient for there to be a substantial

Rucker v. Healthpoint

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

To establish 25 diversity jurisdiction, no defendant must have the same citizenship as any plaintiff, and 26 the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. … This fails to establish federal question 7 jurisdiction under the well pleaded complaint rule.

Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Spellman

518 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 26, 1981

First, it clearly excludes federal waste or facilities from any action taken under a regional compact. … Finally, the Initiative will clearly have more than an incidental effect on interstate commerce.