Amazon filed a declaratory judgment action against NACS, a trade association, after NACS challenged Amazon's college textbook advertising claims (such as savings of up to 90% on used books) before the National Advertising Division and suggested possible further action. NACS moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing no actual controversy existed, and for lack of personal jurisdiction due to its limited contacts with Washington. The court denied the motion, holding that NACS's challenge created a reasonable apprehension of litigation sufficient for declaratory jurisdiction and that specific personal jurisdiction existed because the effects of NACS's actions were felt in Amazon's home state. The ruling focused on the parties' correspondence and the nature of the NAD proceeding without requiring an actual lawsuit threat under the Lanham Act.
The case involved the National Association of Realtors (NAR) suing Champions Real Estate Services and its owners, Patricia and Richard Lord, for unauthorized use of NAR's REALTOR trademarks after the company's brokers discontinued their membership. NAR sought partial summary judgment on its Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, requesting a permanent injunction. The court granted summary judgment against Champions and Mrs. Lord, finding they continued to use the marks without authorization and that Mrs. Lord, as managing broker, was responsible for the brokers' actions, but denied it against Mr. Lord due to lack of evidence of his direct involvement. The decision was based on the validity of the registered marks, evidence of post-membership use, and applicable state real estate broker laws regarding supervisory responsibility.
The case involved a challenge by yellow pages directory publishers Dex Media West, SuperMedia, and others to Seattle's Ordinance 123427, which requires distributors to obtain a license, pay a per-book fee, maintain an opt-out registry for residents, and display a city-mandated message about opting out on directory covers and websites. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment claiming violations of the First Amendment and Commerce Clause, while the City cross-moved for judgment in its favor. The court denied the publishers' motion and granted the City's cross-motion, upholding the ordinance. The core reasoning was that the required disclosures constituted factual commercial speech subject to Zauderer scrutiny, which the ordinance satisfied by advancing the City's interests in privacy and waste reduction with a reasonable fit; the court also found no Commerce Clause violation based on the record. The decision addressed only these partial claims and did not reach other issues.
In Knight v. Brown, Carl Knight, an African-American security sergeant employed by King County’s Facilities Management Division, sued the county and several individual defendants including Gene Willard, alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII and related state law stemming from his 2008 promotion process, shift and post assignments, training opportunities, and interactions with colleagues. The district court ruled on the defendants’ motions for summary judgment after reviewing evidence of Knight’s employment history, medical restrictions, collective bargaining agreement terms, and specific incidents such as work reassignments and reporting practices. The court granted the motions in part, dismissing claims lacking evidence of similarly situated comparators or adverse actions, and denied them in part where genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding supervisor liability and hostile environment allegations. The core reasoning focused on whether Knight had produced sufficient evidence to show differential treatment based on race and whether certain defendants qualified as supervisors under applicable standards.
This case involved claims by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) against Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company for breach of contract and express warranty under a 2000 Loan Purchase Agreement and Seller's Guide. LBHI alleged that Evergreen made misrepresentations in loan application and appraisal documents for a mortgage sold to LBHI's predecessor in 2003. Evergreen moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted Evergreen's motion and denied LBHI's as moot, holding that the statutory limitations period for the contract claims had expired before the suit was filed in 2010. The decision rested on the timing of the loan transaction in 2003 and the absence of any timely assignment of rights that could extend the period.
The case involved a Canadian citizen who was issued an expedited removal order by U.S. Customs and Border Protection after arriving at a port of entry and being found inadmissible for intending to work as a photographer without proper documentation. The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the removal order exceeded statutory authority, violated regulations, and infringed on due process rights. The court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) bars judicial review of such expedited removal orders except in limited circumstances not present here. The decision noted that aliens at the border have no constitutional right to enter or to additional process beyond what Congress provides.
