Case law

Crawford v. Trish

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 10, 2024

Plaintiff would need to show that Tristian is not a 20 citizen of the same state as plaintiff, to establish diversity of citizenship. … And, if plaintiff 21 decides to file an amended complaint, she needs to clearly identify each defendant, and 22 if Blue Goose Market is also a named defendant, plaintiff must establish either federal 23 question jurisdiction

Butler v. OneWest Bank, FSB

550 B.R. 860 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2015

No genuine issues of material fact exist Appellant attempts to avoid summary judgment on several of these claims by asserting that many of the aforementioned facts have not been established such that no genuine issue of material … Mendelson-Zelter, Inc., 113 Wash.2d 346 , 779 P.2d 697 (1989), for the proposition that "[u]nder Washington law, a party who accepts an instrument as an agent for the owner cannot qualify as a “holder.”

Klein Griffith Properties Group LLC v. Washington State Department of Commerce

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

Whether Plaintiff Establishes an Improper Purpose or Means 13 As noted above, Plaintiff must also establish that Defendants “interfered for … While Defendants’ alleged practices may not have been 20 directed to the public at large, they clearly implicate a public interest.

De La Fuente v. Wyman

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 23, 2020

Plaintiff did not pay the fee, and the 7 Washington Republican Party refused to certify that he was qualified to appear on the 8 primary ballot in the State. … Balance of Equities 13 It should be noted that Plaintiff and his counsel have previously filed an 14 “emergency” motion without clearly identifying any actual emergency

Chiafalo v. Inslee

224 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 15, 2016

To attain that end, Plaintiffs seek “the freedom to vote for any person whom [they] feel is the most viable, fit, and qualified.” (Chiafalo Decl. ¶ 10; Guerra Decl. ¶ 9.) … "[F]inancial losses that would be unrecoverable due to [the State’s] Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity do constitute irreparable injury.” A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v.

Leonard v. McMenamins Inc

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 12 || the producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 13 || markings in the margins … This provision 24 || is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or 25 || agreement that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna

881 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 27, 2012

Here, Plaintiffs have established each of the four requisites. 2. … Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 791 (8th Cir.2010) (“The majority of federal circuits have interpreted [Section 230] to establish broad federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service 'providers liable for information

Sterling v. Feek

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 5, 2023

1 immunity, denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss their § 1983 claim based on 2 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(3), and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss their § 1983 claim based on 42 3 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1). … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person 9 clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a 10 unilateral expectation of it.

Pincus Hueter v. Pederson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 9, 2021

Specifically, 8 Plaintiff did not plead any claims arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal 9 question jurisdiction. Id. at 4. … Legally 4 frivolous claims are those “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” such as claims against 5 defendants who are immune from suit or for infringement of a legal interest that clearly does not 6 exist

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Co.

228 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2017

In other words, preemption clearly applies where a claim will directly affect railroad transportation. … Before holding that the result of the earlier consideration has been repealed or qualified, it is reasonable for a court to insist on the legislature’s using language showing that it has made a considered determination to

Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America

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

Shoalwater and the United States’ interests clearly diverge under Dine 7 and its progeny. … It is well established in this Circuit that tribes may intervene for the limited 8 purpose of asserting they are required parties without waiving their sovereign immunity.

Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Maleng

325 F. Supp. 2d 1180 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2004

All of the games provided to the Court for review are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the First Amendment. … The Court finds that the games at issue are expressive and *1185 qualify for the protections of the First Amendment.

Rupe v. Wood

863 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 1994

Second, he must establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. … Petitioner has established by credible expert testimony , that reasonable, qualified polygraph experts could differ on the validity of the Yovetich polygraph results.

Rogers v. Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2021

“at any time if the [C]ourt determines” that the action: (a) “is frivolous or malicious”; (b) 22 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”’ or (c) “seeks monetary relief 23 against a defendant who is immune … a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege: (1) the 19 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and 20 (2) the conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity

Haywood v. State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 21, 2024

A federal court is 16 presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise.  Kokkonen v. 17 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. … The State has an interest in ensuring 23 professionals are qualified for their work to protect the public. See Middlesex Cnty.

Delaplaine v. United Airlines, Inc.

518 F. Supp. 2d 1275 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2007

The new definition of disability further provides that, “for the purposes of *1278 qualifying for reasonable accommodation in employment,” an impairment “must have a substantially limiting effect upon the individual’s ability … As noted by the dissent in McClarty, the legislature had known, since the passage of the ADA, that the HRC’s regulatory definition of disability was broader than under federal law, and the legislature had “clearly acquiesced

Williams v. Washington State Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 5, 2025

“It is well-established that, among the rights they retain, prisoners have a First 14 Amendment right to file prison grievances. … Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this 15 right is itself a constitutional violation, and [is] prohibited as a matter of clearly established law.” 16 Brodheim v.

Turpen v. Turpen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 12, 2023

Additionally, it is well established that judges 19 are absolutely immune from liability for their judicial acts. In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th 20 Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). … Absolute immunity only fails to attach where judicial 21 officers act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction. Demoran v.

Shannahan v. Internal Revenue Service

680 F. Supp. 2d 1270 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 4, 2010

information and qualifies as a statute that exempts disclosure within the meaning of Exemption 3. … Shannahan’s arguments, Agent Beilis clearly sets out the basis for his belief that release of these documents would compromise the informant.

Aguda v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 8, 2025

Aguda’s complaint because it failed to establish 23 a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, establish a waiver of the United States … ’ 24 1 sovereign immunity, or state a claim.