Case law

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.

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

Ejonga v. Watanabe

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 18, 2023

Defendants 4 further contend discovery should be strictly limited in light of their assertion of qualified 5 immunity, and argue that the specific requests are overly broad or otherwise objectionable. … Court granted 18 Plaintiff’s request (Dkt. 120)—but Plaintiff has failed to comply with the new deadline. 19 The Court concludes Plaintiff has not been diligent in obtaining discovery within the 20 guidelines established

In re Wenatchee Heights Orchard Co.

209 F. 84 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 3, 1913

Further provision was made for the transfer of all of the stock of the Summit Investment Company to a trustee, except sufficient shares to qualify the directors to hold office. … Though the court has not found such clearly established fraud in these notes, at the inception of the claim, in the evidence, as to void them, yet they were not free from question, and city property of the nature of that

Spice v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 9, 2020

Dkt. 28. 9 The claims asserted against the Trustee here are clearly barred by the Barton doctrine. … The Plaintiff 11 and his counsel have violated Rule 11 by bringing the claims for which this Court clearly does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider.

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

Derrick v. State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 2024

Derrick does not allege any conduct that falls 16 outside the scope of that immunity or dispute the applicability of prosecutorial immunity in his 17 objections. See generally Dkt. No. 8; see also Dkt. … For that reason, any amended complaint 23 must clearly identify the defendant(s), the claim(s) asserted, the specific facts that Mr.

Anthony v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2020

Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act 14 “The United States is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents.” … Sovereign immunity is “jurisdictional in nature” and, as such, 17 there is no subject matter jurisdiction unless sovereign immunity has been

Hu v. Munita

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 6, 2020

Gibbs is clearly and accomplished and skilled 5 immigration attorney, with substantial experience handling naturalization actions. Dkt. # 6 26-1 at 7. … This Court’s standing order clearly requires parties to 11 meet and confer with the opposing party prior to filing any motion.

Lubers v. Hinson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 27, 2024

not violate Plaintiff’s 12 Constitutional rights”; (2) “the Younger doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims”; (3) “Officers are 13 entitled to Qualified … Immunity”; and (4) “there is no Monell claim[.]”5 Dkt. # 11 at 4–9. 14 III DISCUSSION

Alvarez-Calo v. Obenland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 1, 2023

Alvarez-Calo argues that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established law 11 in concluding that Mr. … However, the custody determination presents a mixed question of law and fact that qualifies for independent review. Thompson v.

Saddiq v. McGee Air Services Company Inc

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

conclusory (see, e.g., id. at 3 (alleging that Defendant 14 “acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and/or acted 15 intentionally and/or with callous disregard for Claimant’s clearly … established constitutional 16 rights.”)).

Laube

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2025

A statute of limitations “must be strictly construed” because 3 it “is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity[.]” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 4 467, 479 (1986). … “Equitable tolling is typically 7 denied in cases where a litigant’s own mistake clearly contributed to his predicament.” Harris v. 8 Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

Lewis v. Baird

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 8, 2019

Id. at 9 349. 10 To establish he suffered an actual injury, plaintiff must show “actual prejudice with 11 respect to contemplated or existing … Bonzelet, 963 13 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), 14 the constitutional or federal statutory claim(s) asserted, the specific facts that plaintiff believes

Everest Indemnity Insurance v. QBE Insurance

980 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 31, 2013

It requested that QBE/CAU agree to defend and indemnify Derus as a qualified insured under QBE/CAU’s insurance policies. Id. at ¶ 15. QBE/CAU denied Derus’ tender for defense by letter on August 14, 2009. Id. at ¶ 16. … Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Summary judgment is proper if the moving party establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Hebert Construction, Inc.

450 F. Supp. 2d 1214 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 7, 2006

The MV Defendants appear to concede that Jacks qualified as MVLLC’s “broker” under the definition in RCW 48.17.020. … In addition to arguing that attorneys’ fees do not qualify as “costs taxed,” St.

Webb v. NaphCare Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 27, 2021

The State’s immunity also 9 applies to its agencies, such as the Department of Social and Health Services. See Beentjes v. 10 Placer Cty. … Therefore, plaintiff’s proposed complaint fails to establish a colorable claim against 4 defendant Naphcare.

Fouts v. Inslee

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

But Count 2 must be dismissed with prejudice 18 because the State of Washington and the Department of Corrections are both immune from suit 19 under the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst St. … His unsuccessful 23 struggle to retain an attorney likewise does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Curbow v. 24 Clintsman, No. 2:21-cv-1420-TLF, 2021 WL 5051662, at *1 (W.D. Wash.

Phillips v. Seattle Times Co.

818 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · 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).

King County v. Viracon Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2020

The doctrine “is not a 13 privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things 14 … the challenged work product does not contain the mental impression, 3 conclusion, or legal theory of an attorney, work product protection is qualified