In Lensch v. Armada Corp., plaintiff Barbara Lensch sued defendant Armada, a debt collector, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) arising from efforts to collect on a $25 dishonored check, including a Notice of Dishonor that threatened criminal charges and follow-up voicemails that failed to disclose the caller was a debt collector. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on three of her FDCPA claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The court granted the motion, holding that Armada's threats of criminal prosecution violated the FDCPA because the collector neither intended nor was legally authorized to pursue such action, that the FDCPA preempted any contrary state law permitting the cautionary language, and that the voicemails constituted false or misleading representations by omitting required disclosures. The decision rested on the FDCPA's strict prohibition of false or deceptive means in debt collection and the absence of any genuine factual dispute on the violations.
The case involved members of the Port Militarization Resistance group suing a retired Coast Guard Investigative Service agent for allegedly infiltrating and spying on their protests against military shipments at the Port of Olympia in 2007, which they claimed led to their arrests and violated their rights. Plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Washington Constitution, various state torts including false arrest and malicious prosecution, and a Bivens action for constitutional violations plus the Posse Comitatus Act. The court dismissed the § 1983 claim as the defendant was a federal actor, the state tort claims under the Westfall Act's federal employee immunity, claims under the Posse Comitatus Act for lack of a private right of action, and portions of the Bivens claim involving excessive force, while permitting the remainder of the Bivens claim to proceed following limited discovery. The decision rested on the distinctions between federal and state actors, statutory immunity rules, and the need to address qualified immunity early while allowing plaintiffs an opportunity to develop facts supporting their allegations.
This case involved Major Margaret Witt's challenge to her discharge from the Air Force Reserves under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute and regulations, claiming violations of her substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. After a bench trial, the court held that the specific application of DADT to Witt violated her substantive due process rights because it did not significantly further the government's interests in military readiness, unit morale, and cohesion, and less intrusive means could achieve those interests. The court dismissed the procedural due process claim, finding no protected liberty or property interest was implicated by an honorable discharge without stated reasons or stigma, and that Witt had received adequate process including notice and opportunity to be heard. The court ordered Witt restored to her position as a flight nurse subject to applicable qualifications. The opinion followed a Ninth Circuit remand applying heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis review to the substantive claim.
This case involved a Medicare supplier, RS Medical, challenging four final decisions by the Medicare Appeals Council that denied coverage and payment for claims related to the BIO-1000, a device for treating osteoarthritis of the knee, on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary under Medicare rules. The plaintiff sought reversal of those denials, while the Secretary of Health and Human Services asked the court to affirm them. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and reversed the decisions, finding them arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence due to inconsistent treatment compared to prior favorable coverage determinations and frequent prior payments for the device without a reasonable distinguishing explanation. The case was remanded for payment in accordance with CMS procedures.
