Richard A. Jones

This case involves two separate consumer lawsuits against wireless providers AT&T Mobility and Verizon, where plaintiffs alleged violations of the Communications Act through unauthorized monthly charges for a data service and unsolicited text messages promoting services. The plaintiffs sought to litigate in court and pursue class actions, but the defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in the service agreements that included class-action waivers. The court granted the motions to compel arbitration, finding the clauses enforceable under Supreme Court precedent in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which upheld such agreements despite class waivers, and rejected arguments that the clauses prevented vindication of statutory rights or were unconscionable. The court dismissed both actions without prejudice to allow the claims to proceed in arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns a dispute between nonprofit organizations that certify electronics recyclers, with plaintiff Basel Action Network challenging defendants' 2003 PTO registration of the certification mark "CERTIFIED ELECTRONICS RECYCLER" on the ground that the term is generic. Basel sought cancellation of the mark under the Lanham Act and asserted an unfair competition claim under Section 43(a) based on defendants' use of the term alongside their R2/RIOS certification. The court reviewed defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming the truth of the complaint's allegations. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Basel had stated a plausible unfair competition claim while reiterating that a cancellation claim requires a valid independent cause of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Lyons v. Homecomings Financial LLC, plaintiff Matthew Lyons sued mortgage lender Homecomings and loan servicer Aurora after refinancing his home, alleging that a broker misrepresented key loan terms including interest rates, payment amounts, and negative amortization features on two loans secured by deeds of trust on his property. Lyons brought claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for inadequate disclosures and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for deceptive practices. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the TILA claims time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations and noting that Lyons had signed documents disclosing the actual terms. For the CPA claim, the court held that no deceptive act occurred because the promissory note allowed payments above the minimum to avoid negative amortization, making it not certain to occur.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involves Mirina Corporation suing Marina Biotech for trademark infringement, trade name infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and a violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act after Marina changed its name to Marina Biotech, which Mirina claims is confusingly similar to its “Mirina” mark in the biotech field. Mirina moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Marina from using the “Marina” or “Marina Biotech” marks. The court denied the motion, applying the Winter standard and finding that Mirina had raised only serious questions on the merits of its infringement claim but failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor. The court noted the absence of evidence that Mirina had developed reputation or goodwill linked to its mark and that an injunction would impose greater hardship on Marina than on Mirina.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Anil Rijal, a Nepali citizen, who petitioned USCIS for an employment-based immigrant visa reserved for aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, based on his career as a film and television producer. USCIS denied the petition after finding that his evidence failed to satisfy the regulatory criteria or demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field. Rijal sued, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted summary judgment to USCIS and dismissed the case, concluding that the agency's evaluation of the evidence and application of the standard were rational and consistent with the record.

immigration

The case involved Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign's attempt to run a bus advertisement stating 'Israeli War Crimes: Your Tax Dollars at Work' on King County Metro buses. After initial approval, the county revoked permission following thousands of public complaints and threats of violence or vandalism against the buses, citing contract provisions barring ads likely to cause harm, disruption, or imminent lawless action. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the bus advertising space is a nonpublic forum where the county's content-based restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The decision rested on the lack of likelihood of success on the First Amendment claim and the balance of equities favoring the county's interest in safety and order.

free speech

This case involves tenants in Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) public housing units and their representative organization challenging the appointment of Lawrence Weldon as a grievance hearing officer under the federal Housing Act. Plaintiffs argued that Weldon lacked necessary qualifications, legal training, and impartiality, and that he failed to properly apply relevant law in deciding tenant grievances against SHA. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Weldon from presiding over any further SHA grievance hearings, and dismissed HUD as a party. The decision rested on findings that Weldon, who is not an attorney and derives most of his work from SHA, did not demonstrate the required independence or adherence to legal standards in his hearing procedures and decisions.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Cheri Naseth's claims against mortgage broker Quintet Mortgage LLC arising from her 2005 home purchase in Everett, Washington, specifically regarding the timing and adequacy of Good Faith Estimates and Truth in Lending Act disclosures for two mortgages, including yield spread premiums and variable rate features. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, granting them in part and denying them in part. It found no genuine dispute that certain disclosures were generated on June 30, 2005, but held that evidence was insufficient to establish mailing or timely receipt of some notices under Regulation X, while other issues such as the unchecked variable rate box and fee labeling did not create triable violations on the record presented. The court also addressed procedural matters for an upcoming bench trial and the status of additional defendants.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a putative class action by Capitol West Appraisals, LLC, an independent appraisal firm, against Countrywide Financial Corp. and affiliated entities alleging violations of RICO and related claims arising from mortgage lending practices. Capitol West claimed that Countrywide pressured appraisers to inflate property valuations to support loans and maintained a "Field Review List" that blacklisted noncompliant appraisers, forcing brokers to obtain costly second appraisals. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding that the fraud-based allegations failed to satisfy the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), the RICO claims lacked sufficient detail and plausibility, and the tortious interference claim was deficient under applicable pleading standards. The court also dismissed certain defendants due to the absence of specific allegations against them and denied leave to amend given prior opportunities to cure deficiencies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns Nirmal Singh, a Sikh asylum seeker from India, who sought to adjust his immigration status to lawful permanent resident after residing in the United States since 1999. USCIS denied the application, finding that Singh had provided material support to Damdami Taksal by allowing its members to stay at his temple, which the agency classified as a terrorist organization under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court reviewed the administrative record, including reports on Sikh movements in India and expert statements, and determined that the evidence did not establish Damdami Taksal as a terrorist organization or show that Singh knew or should have known of any terrorist activities. The court granted Singh's motion for summary judgment, denied the government's motion, and remanded the matter to USCIS for a new adjudication.

immigration

Masters Software, Inc. developed and sold CakeBoss software for professional cake bakers starting in 2007 and used the name on its website and in marketing. Discovery Communications, Inc. launched a reality television series called Cake Boss in 2009 featuring a New Jersey baker and later expanded the brand into merchandise and a book. Masters sued Discovery under the Lanham Act, alleging trademark infringement and dilution, and moved for a preliminary injunction while Discovery moved to seal certain documents. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Masters was likely to succeed on its claims due to evidence of actual confusion and Discovery's failure to search for prior uses of the name before adopting it for the show, and denied the motion to seal because the information was not confidential.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a class of former Spacelabs employees participating in an ERISA cash balance pension plan who were not fully vested when the company was sold in 2004, ending their benefit accruals under the plan. The plaintiffs contended that the plan's Summary Plan Description unambiguously required immediate 100% vesting upon any termination or partial termination, which should control over any contrary language in the master plan document. The court agreed, ruling that ERISA and Ninth Circuit precedent make the SPD the controlling document and that its vesting provision bound the plan fiduciaries, who had denied the claims by relying on the master document and the plan's funding status. The order resolves this legal issue in the plaintiffs' favor but leaves for later determination whether a partial termination occurred and what damages, if any, are owed, with a trial date set for September 2010 if needed.

labor & employment

This case involved eighteen Washington hospitals challenging a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the calculation of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments under Medicare. The hospitals argued that patients covered by Washington's Medical Indigency (MI) and General Assistance-Unemployable (GAU) programs should be included in the Medicaid fraction used to determine eligibility for and the amount of these payments, but the Secretary excluded them. The court denied the hospitals' summary judgment motion and granted the Secretary's, holding that these patients were not eligible for medical assistance under Washington's Medicaid state plan as required by the federal statute. The core reasoning was that mere coverage under a state plan is insufficient; patients must actually receive Medicaid benefits through the plan to count in the numerator of the Medicaid proxy fraction, and Washington's programs did not confer such eligibility.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute among insurers over the duty to defend a framing subcontractor, VFC, in a construction-defect lawsuit arising from the Regatta condominium project in Seattle. Axis Surplus and Canal Indemnity paid VFC's defense costs after James River refused to participate, despite receiving timely notice of the claim, and they sued James River for contribution to those costs under theories of subrogation and assignment of VFC's rights. The court had previously ruled that James River owed a duty to defend and rejected its policy-exclusion arguments; on the present cross-motions for summary judgment, it denies James River's motion, grants Axis/Canal's motion in part, and directs further proceedings. The core reasoning is that James River breached its duty after receiving adequate notice, that VFC did not breach policy conditions by failing to make a direct tender, and that Axis/Canal are entitled to reimbursement for defense costs through the assignment of rights.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Clarendon American Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Jai Thai Enterprises under a commercial general liability policy after a 2006 assault at the restaurant during an event hosted with hired security guards. The policy included a Security Guard Clause requiring Jai Thai to ensure any security providers carried specified liability insurance naming Jai Thai as an additional insured and provided a hold-harmless agreement, which was not obtained. Clarendon moved for partial summary judgment on the duties to defend and indemnify, while Jai Thai moved to amend its answer to add counterclaims for breach of the duty to defend and bad faith. The court granted summary judgment solely on the finding that Jai Thai breached the Security Guard Clause because the guards lacked the required coverage and agreement, but denied the motion as to the duties to defend and indemnify; it also granted the motion to amend and directed the parties to address scheduling. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed a breach of the policy condition making Clarendon's coverage excess, but further analysis was needed on whether the breach relieved Clarendon of its obligations, and the summary judgment motion was largely unopposed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned season ticket holders suing the Professional Basketball Club (PBC), owner of the former Seattle Supersonics, over promises in the Emerald Club brochure that offered fixed 2006-07 ticket prices and cost certainty through the 2009-10 season at Key Arena. Plaintiffs asserted breach of contract and Consumer Protection Act claims after PBC relocated the team to Oklahoma City before the lease expired. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, interpreting the brochure's objective language as forming a contract without any relocation conditions and rejecting PBC's arguments that tickets were revocable at will or that the move was permitted. It denied PBC's summary judgment requests on core claims while reserving class certification issues, emphasizing the brochure's deliberate assurances of Seattle games through 2010.

business & regulatory

This case involves the U.S. government's motion to revoke a magistrate judge's order and impose mandatory electronic home monitoring as a condition of the defendant's pretrial release under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The district court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding no changed circumstances that would support additional terms. The court agreed with the magistrate's conclusion that the mandatory conditions, as applied to this defendant whose job requires overnight travel, violate the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and separation of powers principles.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case concerns whether plaintiff Clay Wyant timely filed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of Lynnwood and police officers stemming from his December 2004 arrest. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by Washington's three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The court held that the 60-day tolling provision in RCW 4.96.020(4), triggered by Wyant's December 2007 pre-suit claim filing, applies to § 1983 actions because federal courts borrow state tolling rules while rejecting only state notice-of-claim prerequisites. Because the tolling made the February 2008 filing timely, the court denied the motion without resolving factual disputes.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community's citizen suit against Skagit County Dike District No. 22 alleging that the district's 2002 replacement of a tidegate on Dry Slough violated the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act by obstructing fish passage for threatened chinook salmon without required federal permits. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion, holding that the work constituted a discharge of fill material needing Corps authorization under CWA Section 404 and that the resulting structure took listed salmon in violation of ESA Section 9. The core reasoning was that the district's biological assessment examined only direct construction effects rather than the tidegate's ongoing habitat impacts, NMFS's contrary opinion established jeopardy and adverse modification, and no maintenance exemption or permit applied to the new structure. The court deferred any remedy to permit settlement discussions.

environment

This case involves plaintiff Timothy Vernor, who seeks a declaratory judgment that his planned resale of used Autodesk AutoCAD software packages on eBay is lawful under the first sale doctrine, after Autodesk repeatedly sent DMCA notices to eBay to block his auctions, asserting copyright infringement. Autodesk moved to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, arguing that its software was distributed only under nontransferable licenses that prohibited resale. The court denied the motion, treating it as one for summary judgment based on undisputed facts about the chain of transfers from Autodesk to a prior owner and then to Vernor. The core reasoning was that the original transfer of the software copies to the prior owner qualified as a sale rather than a mere license, potentially exhausting Autodesk's distribution rights and allowing the first sale doctrine to apply to Vernor's resales.

propertybusiness & regulatory