Case law

Perkins v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 7, 2024

Perkins “desires an opportunity to obtain training 21 in areas he feels he is not fully qualified in. [Mr. … The FTCA, the statute upon which this case is brought, is a limited waiver of 6 sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b).

Lewis v. Stewart

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2021

Qualified Immunity 21 The Court has concluded that plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed for 22 other reasons; accordingly, the Court does not reach defendants … ’ argument that they 23 are entitled to qualified immunity. 24 1 F.

United States v. State of 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

Ngo v. DeJoy

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 31, 2024

See Bachelder, 259 F.3d at 1123–24. 4 Defendant seeks dismissal on the theory that plaintiff cannot establish an FMLA 5 interference claim because she was no longer eligible for FMLA leave when she was 6 marked … To establish pretext, a plaintiff must put forward “specific” evidence indicating that the 19 employer’s articulated nondiscriminatory reason is

Phillips v. KIRO-TV, Inc.

817 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 5, 2011

The Court directed that plaintiffs response was due August 22, 2011, and stated clearly and unequivocally that “[n]o further extensions shall be granted to plaintiff.” Id., p. 4 . … To establish the falsity element, the plaintiff must show the challenged statement was “provably false.” Schmalenberg v. Tacoma News, Inc., 87 Wash.App. 579, 590-91 , 943 P.2d 350 (1997).

Lewis v. Baird

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

In Bounds, the Supreme Court held the right of access imposes an affirmative duty on 14 prison officials to assist inmates in preparing and filing legal papers, either by establishing an 15 adequate law library or by … Bonzelet, 963 22 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), 23 the constitutional or federal statutory claim(s) asserted, the specific facts that plaintiff believes

Monper v. Boeing Co.

104 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2015

Under the BCERP, participants with at least 10 years of qualifying vesting service may retire as early as age 55. … Absent information clearly responsive to this question, Plaintiffs relied on the word of the Direct Communication Defendants, including pension office and Total Access representatives allegedly overseen by the Committee,

Webb v. Busey

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 2, 2022

Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses 17 “all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” it will dismiss all 18 related state claims, as well. Artis v. … The amended complaint must include a short, 12 plain statement clearly stating the factual allegations supporting Plaintiff’s claims and provide 13 clarity regarding what claims he is attempting to bring in this lawsuit

Contreraz v. City of Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 26, 2023

“The work-product rule is not a privilege but a qualified 6 immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his 7 representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. … “The 14 burden of establishing protection of materials as work product is on the proponent, and it must be 15 specifically raised and demonstrated rather than asserted in a blanket fashion.”

Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Asia

2 F.2d 485 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 12, 1921

when it is deemed advisable to purchase any public utility mentioned in 8005, and if in the acquisition a general indebtedness is to be incurred: “Such proposition shall be adopted and assented to by three-fifths of the qualified … Clearly the recourse of the plaintiff is to maintain the integrity of the special fund.

Rindal v. Inslee

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

Because Plaintiff’s allegations derive from CQAC’s administrative 21 proceeding against him, these documents are clearly relevant. … Therefore, Defendants do not 4 establish the fourth element of collateral estoppel, and the Court cannot apply it here.6 5 C.

Hubbard

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 4, 2026

However, what a plaintiff must allege to 8 be found a “bona fide applicant” is not clearly discernable. See, e.g., Order Granting Remand at 9 4, Walton v. Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. C24-1051 (W.D. Wash. … No. 44 at 9) 23 and acknowledges that it also cannot find a consistent or clear standard that definitively 24 establishes what qualifies as a “bona fide applicant” under the EPOA.

Shirley v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025

Federal Rules 14 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness who is qualified as an expert by 15 knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education … Risch’s conclusions about 6 whether Defendants provided a reasonable accommodation or established undue hardship will be 7 excluded.

Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

243 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2017

Along with the issue of inflated premiums, Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants overvalued his property such that it would qualify for higher premiums. Id. at ¶¶ 133, 134. … The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction rests upon the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction.' Id.

Valve Corporation v. Rothschild

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2024

“Courts will not 14 find an implied waiver… unless the intent to waive the party's right is clearly 15 demonstrated by the surrounding facts and circumstances”—a “factual issue” that 16 “may only be established … as a matter of law when the facts and circumstances are 17 admitted or clearly established.”

Jolon-Puac v. State of Washington

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

In addition, it is well established that, under the Eleventh Amendment, an unconsenting 21 state is immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own citizens. See Edelman v. … Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended)). 11 Thus, any amended complaint must clearly identify each intended Defendant, the constitutional 12 claim(s) asserted against each Defendant

Gratton v. City of Tukwila

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2024

By failing to raise 22 qualified immunity as a ground for summary judgment, Defendants have waived consideration of the defense at this stage of the proceedings. See Bonnie Lopez v. State of Nev., No. … Clerk’s Off., 604 F.3d 257, 269–70 (6th Cir. 2010) (refusing to address qualified 24 immunity defense that was raised in defendant’s answer but not in his summary judgment motion). 1 Though Plaintiff attempts to

Li v. Northeastern University

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

(“[A]ny unplanned absence should be clearly communicated to 6 your manager with as much advanced notice as possible.”). … Jan. 7, 2019) (issue of fact whether administering immunizations is an essential job function 7 of a staff pharmacist); Kees v. Wallenstein, 973 F. Supp. 1191, 1194 (W.D.

Beaver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 25, 2025

Legal Standard 12 A jurisdictional dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is warranted “where the alleged claim under 13 the constitution or federal statutes clearly appears … Beaver’s complaint “establishes 13 that the IRS issued an enforceable summons under procedures authorized by title 26”; therefore, 14 RFPA cannot provide a waiver of sovereign immunity here. Id. at 5–6.

Taneja v. Freitas

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

The party seeking to compel discovery has the 15 burden of establishing that its requests are relevant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). … The work-product doctrine “is a ‘qualified immunity 8 from discovery’ that attempts to balance ‘the necessity of protecting an attorney’s preparation 9 under the adversary system, and the policy of full and open discovery