Robert S. Lasnik

This case is a shareholder derivative action in which a plaintiff alleged that directors and officers of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries breached fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and engaged in gross mismanagement. The court evaluated motions to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to make a pre-suit demand on the board under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 and Delaware law standards for demand futility, including whether a majority of directors faced a substantial likelihood of personal liability. Although the plaintiff did not allege particularized facts excusing demand as to all directors, the court granted the motions in part and stayed the entire derivative suit pending resolution of related securities litigation to promote judicial efficiency.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a class of foreign religious workers holding special immigrant visas who challenged a USCIS policy barring them from concurrently filing Form I-485 applications for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status until their employers' Form I-360 visa petitions were approved, a restriction not applied to other employment-based immigrant categories. Plaintiffs claimed the policy substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA, discriminated on the basis of religion, and infringed the First Amendment, Due Process, and Equal Protection. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the policy imposed no substantial burden under RFRA because any resulting detention, deportation, or penalties arose from visa expiration rather than religious practice, and that the policy satisfied rational basis review under Equal Protection given the broad deference afforded immigration regulations and the government's interest in fraud prevention.

immigrationreligious libertycivil rights

This qui tam case involved relators alleging that CDI and related defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Act, and False Claims Act by entering into lease and joint venture arrangements with physician groups, funneling money to induce referrals of Medicare and other government-insured patients, providing free or discounted services, and failing to follow billing rules such as obtaining prior written orders. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). It allowed the AKS and FCA claims based on the leasing arrangements to proceed but dismissed the claims involving free and discounted services, the claim against MSCPA, the FCA claim for lack of prior written orders, and the Stark Act claim, with leave to amend most dismissed claims except the Stark Act facility-leasing theory, which failed as a matter of law because the physicians billed the government directly.

criminal lawhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves an EEOC lawsuit under Title VII against Fry's Electronics for alleged discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices affecting two individuals, Ka Lam and America Rios. Lam, who had filed an EEOC charge, was allowed to intervene, but Rios, who had not filed her own charge, moved to intervene as well. The court denied Rios' motion, holding that she lacked an unconditional statutory right to intervene because she had not exhausted administrative remedies by filing a timely EEOC charge. The court further reasoned that the single filing rule did not excuse her failure to file, as her hostile work environment claim was not nearly identical to Lam's retaliation claim and thus did not provide the employer with adequate notice or conciliation opportunity.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance policy on the life of Elizabeth Michelman, originally taken out by her parents Irwin and Gail Michelman while they were married. After their 2001 divorce, which did not address the policy, Gail changed the beneficiary designation in 2002 to remove Irwin and name their other daughter. Irwin brought breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims asserting rights to the proceeds based on an alleged agreement and his status as a co-owner or beneficiary. The court granted summary judgment to Gail, dismissing Irwin's claims and declaring her entitled to the proceeds. The core reasoning was that no enforceable agreement existed due to lack of evidence and the statute of frauds, Irwin's beneficiary interest was not a vested property right at divorce, post-divorce ownership interests as tenants in common did not confer rights to proceeds, and those interests expired when ownership transferred to Elizabeth at age 21.

family lawproperty

The case involves a class action lawsuit against Intelius Inc. alleging that the company used deceptive online marketing practices to enroll consumers in subscription services without clear disclosure between 2007 and the present, raising claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), unjust enrichment, and other statutes. Intelius moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), seeking dismissal on grounds including inadequate fraud pleading, non-deceptive advertising, lack of standing for one plaintiff, inability to maintain a nationwide CPA class, failure of the unjust enrichment claim, inapplicability of the Stored Communications Act, and no basis for declaratory relief. The court reviewed the motion under the 12(b)(6) standard, taking allegations as true and considering screen shots of the webpages under the incorporation by reference doctrine after finding their authenticity sufficiently established for this stage. It concluded that the CPA claims could not be dismissed because the marketing must be evaluated as a whole in context to assess its capacity to deceive reasonable consumers, disagreeing with contrary analyses from other courts that focused narrowly on disclosure language, while addressing related issues such as standing and unjust enrichment elements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff, a Boeing employee with fibromyalgia who holds a disabled parking placard, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Washington Law Against Discrimination after Boeing imposed a walking restriction and reassigned her to light duty based on her job's requirements. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims, arguing no genuine issues of material fact existed. The court granted the motion in part after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and applying the standards from Celotex and related precedents, finding insufficient support for some claims while allowing others to proceed. Core reasoning focused on whether Boeing's actions stemmed from legitimate job demands or discriminatory motives, including analysis of medical documentation, comparators, and potential retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Tift v. Snohomish County, pro se plaintiff Gregory Tift sued three county deputies and Snohomish County after they entered his home with a writ of execution to seize property in satisfaction of a judgment, arrested him, and removed various items, alleging claims including unlawful arrest, excessive force, due process violations, trespass, and others under federal and state law. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the unlawful arrest claim against deputies Jones and Giralmo, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether probable cause existed, but granted summary judgment on all remaining claims against all defendants, including those against the county for lack of an identified policy causing the alleged violations and on qualified immunity grounds for the individual defendants on other claims. The court also denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on trespass, concluding the deputies were lawfully present pursuant to the writ. The decision rested on application of summary judgment standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, qualified immunity analysis, and review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regarding the calculation of disability retirement benefits from the Puget Sound Electrical Workers Pension Plan. The plaintiff, an electrician with a chronic back problem, applied for benefits claiming disability onset in May 2005, supported by his physician's statements, but the defendant trust fund assigned a later onset date after approving the application. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, determining that the plan's terms and the medical evidence supported an onset date allowing benefits to begin on January 1, 2008, following the required six-month waiting period from the application. The core reasoning centered on the unreasonable interpretation by the plan trustees of the disability onset provisions and the failure to properly consider the physician's certification of permanent and total disability.

labor & employment

The case involves a Washington corporation seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity of a patent owned by a California corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), asserting that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion after finding that the defendant's contacts with Washington, consisting of a passive website, two cease-and-desist letters, and sales through an independent third-party distributor, were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. It reasoned that these contacts did not approximate physical presence in the state and that the distributor's activities could not be attributed to the defendant absent evidence of control or a more substantial ongoing relationship.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a facial First Amendment challenge by ATL Corp. to two Seattle municipal code provisions regulating adult cabarets: SMC 6.270.090, which required city employees to investigate and approve licenses after verifying compliance with various laws, and SMC 23.47A.004.H, which imposed 600- and 800-foot dispersion requirements from other adult uses and certain sensitive locations. The court granted partial summary judgment, upholding the dispersion ordinance as constitutional because it left a sufficient number of alternative sites available for adult cabarets within the city, but invalidating the licensing ordinance as an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected speech. The core reasoning was that the licensing scheme lacked any mandatory time limits for decisions, allowing indefinite delays that could suppress expression, whereas the zoning rules did not unreasonably restrict avenues of communication.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case centered on claims by cruise ship passengers against Park West Galleries and related entities, alleging that the defendants used mail and wire fraud to sell overvalued or worthless artwork through auctions on cruises, in violation of the federal RICO statute as well as various state fraud, contract, and consumer protection laws. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It dismissed the Michigan Fine Art Sales Act and Michigan Art Multiple Sales Act claims, the fraud claim related to artwork provenance or authenticity, and the unjust enrichment claim, while allowing other claims such as the core RICO allegations to proceed. The court reasoned that the complaint sufficiently alleged an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity under applicable pleading standards, but that certain fraud elements were inadequately pled and that equitable claims like unjust enrichment could not stand where express contracts governed the transactions.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs who purchased artwork from Park West Galleries and related entities while at sea, alleging claims based on misrepresentations about the art's value, provenance, and authenticity, as well as unjust enrichment and conspiracy. Park West moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the invoices signed at purchase contained a nine-month contractual limitation on filing lawsuits. The court granted the motion, holding that the suit limitation provision was enforceable under federal common law (applying Restatement (Second) of Contracts principles after a choice-of-law analysis that rejected Washington law), was not unconscionable, and barred all claims since the suits were filed outside the period. The court further reasoned that plaintiffs' reliance on pre-contract statements was unjustified due to the invoice terms and that equitable claims failed in light of the valid contract.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a buyer's claims against Park West Galleries and affiliated companies arising from purchases of artwork, including allegations of misrepresentations about value and provenance made during sales conducted at sea. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It held that the claims were time-barred by a contractual provision in the purchase invoices requiring any lawsuit to be filed within nine months of the invoice date. The court applied federal common law under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, found the limitation clause enforceable because it was not unconscionable given the circumstances of the transaction, concluded that reliance on pre-contract representations was unjustified in light of the integrated contract terms, and determined that the unjust enrichment claim failed for the same reasons.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from the death of Marion Wilson in a fire involving a GE stove and All-Clad griddle, with her minor grandsons present and attempting to assist as she burned. The grandsons brought bystander claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which defendants sought to dismiss on partial summary judgment on the ground that Washington law limits such claims to family members enumerated in the wrongful death statute, excluding grandchildren. The district court denied the motion, predicting that the Washington Supreme Court would not apply the limitation from an intermediate appellate decision because subsequent case law and the nature of the grandparent-grandchild relationship indicate a broader class of eligible plaintiffs.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved a motion by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to intervene in a closed criminal prosecution of Lucretia James for drug conspiracy charges and to unseal her plea agreement and the government's sentencing memorandum, which had been filed under seal. The court permitted the CBC to intervene based on its common law and First Amendment rights to access judicial records. After balancing the presumption of public access against compelling interests in protecting an ongoing investigation and the safety of the defendant and her family, the court granted the motion in part by ordering redacted versions of the documents to be unsealed while keeping sensitive details sealed.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

The case involved a dispute between home builder Polygon Northwest and its insurer Steadfast over the application of self-insured retention (SIR) amounts in multiple Home Builders Protective policies covering construction damage liability. Polygon argued that a single $1 million SIR should apply to a claim arising from one construction occurrence that spanned several policy periods, while Steadfast contended that a separate SIR was required for each annual policy period. The court denied Polygon's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Steadfast's cross-motion, holding that the policy language unambiguously required a new SIR for each consecutive annual period. The decision rested on the policy provisions stating that SIR amounts apply separately to each annual period and that coverage is limited to property damage for work transferred during the specific policy period, with no ambiguity to resolve in favor of the insured.

business & regulatoryproperty

Petitioner Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda, a Nigerian citizen and lawful permanent resident, was detained by ICE after a final order of removal based on his conviction for forgery, an aggravated felony. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the lawfulness of his continued detention and seeking release or a bond hearing. The court denied the petition and granted the motion to dismiss, finding that his detention was lawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act and that the post-order custody reviews satisfied due process by considering the required factors under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(f). The court further held that challenges to the discretionary decision to continue detention are not subject to judicial review under INA § 242(a)(2)(B).

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

This case involved aircraft mechanics at Horizon Air who filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the company from enforcing policies that banned non-approved union insignia on uniforms and prohibited union-related discussions on the work floor during a representation election between AMFA and the IBT. The court denied the motion for both forms of relief. The core reasoning was that, while employees have rights under the Railway Labor Act to support a union, employers may impose reasonable restrictions on insignia and speech to protect legitimate business interests such as safety, productivity, and avoiding workplace disruption, and Horizon's policies were justified on that basis without unduly burdening employee rights.

labor & employment

This case involves Jonathan Lee Gentry's federal habeas petition challenging his Washington state conviction and death sentence for the aggravated first degree murder of a 12-year-old girl. After the court granted summary judgment denying the petition, Gentry moved for reconsideration on various grounds, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to investigation of witnesses and other issues, as well as challenges to jury instructions and the death penalty statute. The court denied the motion, finding that Gentry failed to demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling or new facts or legal authority that could not have been presented earlier, and that his claims were properly rejected on the merits, including lack of prejudice and consistency with Supreme Court precedents like Strickland and Tuilaepa.

criminal lawprocedure