Ricardo S. Martinez

This case involved Mr. Rashid Abdur Rahman and his family's challenge to USCIS decisions denying H-1B visa extension petitions filed by his former employer Wiztech/Intellibytes and revoking an approved I-140 immigrant petition and related labor certification, primarily due to disputes over the employer's corporate charter status after forfeiture and revival. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants', holding that the agency's actions were not in accordance with law because they relied on an improper assessment of corporate status under Maryland law and considered factors Congress did not intend, such as post-withdrawal financial records after the alien changed jobs. The court ruled the labor certification remains valid and remanded the H-1B and I-140 matters to the agency for reconsideration.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved the United States suing Rhody Dairy and its owner for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act after FDA inspections revealed inadequate recordkeeping of animal drug treatments and improper extralabel drug use on cows, which the government alleged created insanitary conditions that could result in adulterated milk and beef entering commerce. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on claims under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 331(k), and 331(u), denied the defendants' cross-motion, and issued a permanent injunction under § 332(a) requiring the defendants to maintain detailed treatment records, follow approved drug uses, and take corrective actions as directed by the FDA. The core reasoning was that the FDCA prohibits introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce, "insanitary conditions" under § 342(a)(4) include lack of adequate drug-use controls on food-producing animals, and the documented recordkeeping failures created a reasonable possibility of harm without needing proof of actual contamination or specific statutory recordkeeping mandates. The court also held that FDA compliance policy guides and regulations supported this interpretation and that factual disputes over record adequacy presented legal rather than factual issues.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Schultz v. United Airlines, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the airline breached a contract by failing to deliver his checked baggage on time after charging a baggage fee, and he sought to bring class claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment on behalf of passengers whose bags were lost, delayed, or damaged. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act because they related to airline prices and services, the Conditions of Carriage constituted the governing contract, and the plaintiff failed to identify any distinct self-imposed undertaking or implied contract that would fall within the Wolens exception to preemption.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved real estate developers Glenn and Teri Davis who sought insurance coverage and defense from American States Insurance Company (a Liberty Mutual subsidiary) under a commercial general liability policy after third-party homeowners sued them for construction defects related to improperly installed windows. Davis had been listed as an additional insured on a policy held by their contractor, but the insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the work was performed by an unlicensed corporate entity that was not the named insured on the policy at the relevant time. Davis sued for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, while the insurer counterclaimed for declaratory relief. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied it to Davis, holding that there was no coverage because the policy did not extend to the entity that performed the work, that the insurer's investigation and denial were reasonable, and that there were no bad faith or CPA violations. The court dismissed all of Davis's claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Plaintiff Sicilia, a former Boeing ethics and compliance specialist, sued the company alleging unlawful retaliation under the False Claims Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Washington State Family Leave Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and for retaliation and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The claims arose from Sicilia's reports that proposed changes to Boeing's compliance oversight processes would violate the company's Interim Administrative Agreement with the U.S. Air Force following a prior suspension from government contracting. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that each claim failed as a matter of law. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration regarding evidentiary objections filed with the summary judgment briefing.

labor & employmentcriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved flight attendants who were injured by severe turbulence during a 2007 Alaska Airlines flight and sued WSI Corporation, the airline's weather information provider, alleging it failed to supply accurate SIGMET warnings about the hazardous conditions. The court converted the defendant's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing the claims. The core reasoning was that WSI owed no tort duty to the plaintiffs as third parties because the contract with Alaska Airlines explicitly stated the services were for the benefit of the contracting parties only, were provided "as is" with all warranties disclaimed, and placed responsibility for actions on the customer; any reliance on WSI's information was therefore unjustifiable as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, former mortgage underwriters sued their employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington state law, claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime pay despite being required to work more than forty hours per week. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss because the asserted affirmative defenses regarding exempt status raised factual issues that could not be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It also denied the motion to strike consent forms filed by potential collective action members, as there was no evidence of improper solicitation and early filing of consents is permitted under the statute. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification, allowing the FLSA claims to proceed on behalf of similarly situated employees.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case arose when Edifecs, a software company, sued TIBCO, a business software company, for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, and trade secret misappropriation under Washington law after TIBCO acquired Edifecs's chief competitor, Foresight; Edifecs alleged that TIBCO's refusal to implement segregation measures for employees with access to Edifecs's licensed proprietary software violated confidentiality provisions in their licensing agreements. The district court granted TIBCO's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all claims. The court reasoned that the complaint contained only speculative allegations of possible future misuse or disclosure without sufficient facts to plausibly show an actual breach or misappropriation, applying the pleading standards from Twombly and Iqbal and determining that California law governed the contract claims while Washington law applied to the trade secret claim. Leave to amend the complaint was granted.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns an Indian family who entered the U.S. on H-1B visas, filed petitions to extend status and adjust to lawful permanent resident, and later traveled abroad on advance parole after some employment-based petitions were revoked. Upon attempting to return, they were denied entry and placed in expedited removal proceedings. The court granted their motion for a preliminary injunction as to alternative relief, ordering that the family receive a removal hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a where they may renew adjustment applications, directing defendants to permit their return to the United States within thirty days, and specifying that only thirty-five days would count as time accrued outside the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). The decision rested on the pending status of their applications, prior stipulations, and the procedural requirements for handling their inadmissibility claims.

immigration

In this habeas corpus case, petitioner Daniel Young challenged his Washington state conviction for first-degree murder (felony murder based on robbery) after his son Matthew, an acquitted co-defendant, was not subpoenaed by defense counsel to testify that the shooting occurred during a drug deal rather than a robbery. The federal district court found that the state appellate court's denial of Young's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was objectively unreasonable under Strickland v. Washington, because counsel's failure to secure Matthew's testimony—despite building the defense around it—was deficient performance that prejudiced the outcome by preventing evidence that could have supported only a second-degree murder charge. The court therefore granted the petition, vacated the conviction, and ordered Young's release unless the state retried him within 90 days. The decision rests on the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel and the objective unreasonableness of the state court's application of federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle sued Deutsche Bank Securities and related entities in Washington state court, alleging violations of the state's Securities Act in connection with mortgage-related investments. The defendants removed the action to federal district court, asserting jurisdiction based on the bank's federal charter, its status as a government agency, diversity of citizenship, and relatedness to bankruptcy proceedings involving an indemnifying party. The court rejected the first three bases for federal jurisdiction, finding that the charter's "competent jurisdiction" language requires a separate grant of authority, the bank is not a federal agency under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and the bank has only national citizenship precluding diversity. Although "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand on equitable grounds, citing the purely state-law nature of the claims and consistency with remand in similar parallel actions.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Michael and Diane McCann's lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase Bank and Quality Loan Service Corp. over claims stemming from a mortgage refinance transaction with Washington Mutual Bank, including intentional and negligent misrepresentation, violations of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2607), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and requests for note reformation, rescission, and injunctive relief to halt a trustee's sale. Chase removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, joined by Quality. The court granted both motions to dismiss, holding that Chase did not assume Washington Mutual's liabilities for borrower claims under the terms of the FDIC's purchase and assumption agreement following Washington Mutual's closure, that the claims against Chase could not proceed on that basis, and that Quality faced no direct claims. The court also noted that any potential TILA rescission claim would be time-barred and dismissed the claims with leave to amend to name a proper defendant.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Gary A. Reys, Chairman and CEO of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 through material misstatements and omissions about the company's stem cell therapy product and its promotional activities, as well as aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) reporting requirements. Reys moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing lack of specificity, immateriality of statements, and implausible scienter. The court granted the motion in part as to one paragraph in the complaint, denied it in part as to the remaining claims, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend, finding that the allegations met the plausibility and particularity standards for most claims while taking facts as true and drawing reasonable inferences of liability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a homeowner who refinanced his residence in 2006 and later sued his lender JP Morgan Chase and loan servicer Quality Loan Service after receiving an adjustable-rate mortgage with higher payments than expected, alleging violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and other claims, while seeking rescission and to halt a trustee's sale. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing the claims against the appearing defendants. The TILA and RESPA claims were barred by their one-year statutes of limitations because the loan documents were signed in 2006 and the suit was filed in 2009. The CPA claim was dismissed as preempted by the National Bank Act, and claims against unserved defendants were dismissed without prejudice.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves non-exempt janitorial employees suing ABM Industries for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington wage and hour laws, including claims of off-the-clock work, missed rest and meal breaks, and unpaid overtime. The court granted conditional certification of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for FLSA claims but denied certification of a state-law class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The decision rested on the lenient standard for FLSA conditional certification being met due to evidence of common policies and practices affecting employees, contrasted with the failure to show that common issues predominated over individual ones for the state claims under Rule 23. Opt-in FLSA plaintiffs may still pursue pendent state claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a group of AT&T Wireless customers sued Cingular Wireless and related entities after their 2004 merger, alleging that Cingular deliberately degraded the AT&T network to pressure customers into switching to more expensive Cingular plans and paying various fees, in violation of state consumer protection laws, the Federal Communications Act, and common-law doctrines. Defendants moved to compel individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in the customers' service agreements that included class-action waivers. The court denied the motion, holding that the class waivers rendered the arbitration provisions substantively unconscionable under the applicable state contract laws of the plaintiffs' home states. It further ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt generally applicable state-law unconscionability defenses in this context.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved California residents suing T-Mobile over late payment fees for cellular service, claiming the fees violated state laws including Civil Code section 1671 as unlawful penalties. T-Mobile moved to dismiss or stay the action, arguing that the fees constituted "rates" subject to exclusive FCC regulation under the Federal Communications Act, which preempts state authority over wireless carrier rates. The court granted a stay under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, referring the matter to the FCC to determine whether the late fees qualify as rates and, if so, whether they are reasonable. The decision rested on the need for FCC expertise in interpreting the statute, ensuring uniformity in telecommunications regulation, and avoiding conflicting judicial outcomes on issues within the agency's specialized competence.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking a permanent injunction against William H. Camp Jr., who operated as a tax return preparer through Universal Business Systems, for promoting the MIDAS mining investment program and preparing amended tax returns that improperly claimed deductions under I.R.C. § 616 for mining development expenses. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment after Camp failed to respond, treating his silence and unanswered requests for admissions as concessions that he had organized and promoted a scheme involving false or fraudulent statements about tax benefits, prepared returns claiming unlawful deductions for multiple clients across states, and misrepresented his qualifications. Based on the admitted facts, the court concluded that Camp's conduct violated I.R.C. §§ 6700, 6701, and 6694, among others, and issued a broad permanent injunction prohibiting him from preparing tax returns for others, making false tax statements, or engaging in related penalized activities, while also requiring him to notify affected clients. The reasoning centered on the unrebutted evidence of violations and the need to prevent further harm under I.R.C. §§ 7402, 7407, and 7408.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action securities fraud lawsuit brought by investors against Metawave Communications Corp. and certain executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with a Section 20(a) controlling person claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false statements about the quality and demand for Metawave's Spotlight GSM product in Asia, revenue recognition from sales, and inventory accounting, which inflated the stock price until a March 2002 disclosure caused a sharp drop. After multiple prior dismissals with leave to amend under the PSLRA's heightened pleading standards, the court granted the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by defendants Hunsberger and Fuhlendorf. The core reasoning was that the complaint still failed to plead particularized facts creating a strong inference of scienter (deliberate recklessness) as to these two defendants, despite ample opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified in earlier orders.

business & regulatory

This ERISA case concerns a plaintiff's claim that his long-term disability benefits were wrongfully terminated by the plan administrator. After the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's prior summary judgment ruling and directed de novo review due to flagrant procedural violations in the termination letters, the defendants moved to remand the matter to the claims administrator. They argued that the Supreme Court's intervening Glenn decision required deferential review instead and that Saffle supported remand. The court denied the motion, holding that Glenn addresses only conflicts of interest as a factor in abuse-of-discretion analysis and does not preclude de novo review triggered by procedural violations, while Saffle's remand rule does not apply where the administrator has not merely misconstrued the plan.

labor & employmentprocedure