Case law

French

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 2, 2026

It also does not indicate whether any Defendants sought to hire a 7 white inmate over qualified inmates of other races. … In order to establish an 14 Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must satisfy a two-part test containing both an 15 objective and a subjective component.

Amana Global Company v. King County

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

20 Plaintiffs fail to show participation in the harm alleged by the individually named defendants, 21 who in any case are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The employer/employee relationship is sufficient to 20 establish privity.” Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wn. App. 891, 902 (Wash. Ct.

Lundy v. Pierce County Sheriff's Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 27, 2023

Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 4 The Pierce County defendants asserted for the first time in reply that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … 28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE 1 Baker opened the doors of the cabinet: Jacob’s face and arms were clearly

Seaway Properties, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

16 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2014

limitations on one who qualifies as an additional insured via the portion of the clause that precedes the phrase. … Rather, the accident in question clearly arose out of [the lessor's own failure to maintain the pathway from the parking lot to the employee entrance.

Shirley v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

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

Moreover, it also likely qualifies as a self-authenticating public record. 3 See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8); 902(5). … The OFM guidance also likely qualifies as a 8 self-authenticating public record. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8); 902(5). 9 17.

Montano v. State of Washington Department of Health

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 2025

Reporting on public health advisories issued by 14 governmental authorities such as the Spokane Regional Health District (“SRHD”) and the 15 Washington Department of Health certainly qualifies as an exercise of freedom … Id. 7 KREM-2 News Defendants argue their reports on the public health advisories concerning 8 Plaintiff’s dental practice qualify for the fair report privilege because

Salom v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 5, 2024

Supp. 7 2d at 803; see also Faiella, 928 F.3d at 147 (explaining that it stated “‘in part’ because the doctrine 8 also rests solidly ‘upon considerations of sovereign immunity and constitutional grounds.’”). … The test is whether Freddie Mac 12 is engaged in a governmental objective, and it clearly is. Id. 13 D.

Greenpeace v. National Marine Fisheries Service

55 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 13, 1999

The Biological Opinion could be written much more clearly. … Although NMFS contends that the scoping notice and the SEIS clearly establish that the federal action under review was only the setting of TAC levels, both documents are in fact ambiguous on this point.

United States v. Washington

459 F. Supp. 1020 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 30, 1978

Because the findings of the Master are not clearly erroneous, and are based upon substantial evidence clearly sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of treaty entitlement in the Nooksack Tribe, the court has approved … This court will not, in the exercise of its continuing jurisdiction in this case, entertain any application for interference with on-reservation treaty-right Indian fishing, excepting only (a) when it is clearly established

Melwani v. Amazon.com Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 14 protection, the producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 15 making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision 26 is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or 1 agreement that provides for production without prior privilege review.

United States v. Haughton

290 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 15, 1968

On September 13, 1967, the Local Board, in reply to defendant’s letter of August 24, advised defendant that he was not qualified for civilian work as he was not classified I-O. … Defendant in this case did not clearly establish his right to an exemption from military service. Contrast: Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 , 74 S.Ct. 152 , 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953).

Brown v. Sager

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 16, 2024

No. 14 at 13–16.2 16 Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity for damages resulting from any 17 alleged constitutional violations, that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for any … Brown also includes 9 a heading, without corresponding elaboration, that he “does not challenge qualified immunity from 10 damages[.]” Id. at 13. And last, Mr.

Strickland v. State of Washington Seattle Central College

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 2019

are entitled to qualified immunity).) 19 3 (See id. §§ V.C (arguing that Seattle Central is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. … Strickland must first establish a 19 prima facie case of discrimination. Odima, 991 F.2d at 599. To establish such a case, 20 Ms.

Baker v. State of Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 6, 2025

11 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 12 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 13 who is immune … Leave to Amend 10 The Ninth Circuit has “established that a pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must 11 have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome

State of Washington v. Landmark Technology A LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 28, 2022

Or. 1 2 Mar. 24, 2020)). 3 The State’s claims, under both the PTPA and CPA, clearly … 19 inquiry not suitable for disposition under Rule 12(b)(6); Landmark is relying upon the wrong 20 standard for establishing “bad faith”; and that in any event the State adequately pleaded bad 21

Warner v. Citizens' Bank of Anacortes

19 F.2d 947 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 1927

. § 9651) clearly has no application. Section 60b (Comp. … stands in the “shoes” of the bankrupt, and that having sold the property, as it had a right to do, without notice, as was likewise the right of the bankrupt while he was owner, the trustee, adopting the sale and securing the qualified

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 28, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 9 producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 10 markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to 21 modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides 22 for

Coral Construction Co. v. King County

729 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 4, 1989

evidence provides the “exceedingly persuasive justification” required to support the gender-based remedy imposed by the county’s WBE set-aside program, see AGC, 813 F.2d at 939-40, and identifies the past discrimination clearly … The county may waive or reduce the MWBE preferences if qualified MWBE’s are not available, or if a bidding MWBE’s higher price is not attributable to the effect of past discrimination.

Williams v. Lawson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 30, 2024

Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067 (considering a jury’s verdict and qualified immunity on a 13 Fourteenth Amendment claim). … Qualified Immunity 22 Because the Eighth Amendment claims fail on their merits, the Court does reach the 23 question of qualified immunity.

Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2021

, 3 Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, (9th Cir. 2009)). 4 “The prototypical service qualifying for [CDA] immunity is an online messaging board 5 (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers … In this 22 context, Classmates is the content creator and not entitled to immunity under the CDA.