James L. Robart

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

immigrationfederal power

The case concerned yellow pages directory publishers challenging Seattle Ordinance 123427, which required an annual distributor license, a per-book fee, an opt-out registry for residents, and mandated notices on covers and websites to address unwanted deliveries, privacy concerns, and waste. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on First Amendment and related grounds, asserting the rules amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint and burden on commercial speech. The court denied the motion after applying the Winter factors and the Ninth Circuit's serious-questions test, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury sufficient to justify extraordinary relief.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Steven Mándelas against debt collection law firm Daniel N. Gordon, PC, arising from the firm's efforts to collect on an arbitration award in favor of CACV of Colorado, LLC, including service of process to confirm the award in state court and subsequent garnishment proceedings. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act, and Washington Consumer Protection Act based on claims of improper service, inadequate notice of garnishment, and related collection practices. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning examined whether the defendant's conduct created genuine issues of material fact regarding statutory compliance, particularly around service declarations and notice requirements, while dismissing claims that lacked evidentiary support.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Deep9 Corporation sued Barnes & Noble alleging that its Nook e-reader device infringes two patents, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. Barnes & Noble asserted prosecution history estoppel as its fourth affirmative defense in its answer. Deep9 moved to strike the defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and the court granted the motion without prejudice. The court reasoned that prosecution history estoppel is not an affirmative defense but instead applies at claim construction if the plaintiff relies on the doctrine of equivalents, following the analysis in Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.

procedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Hartford Insurance Company against Tarrell Leahy and Rick Zabel concerning coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to Prudential Northwest Real Estate. Hartford sought a ruling that Zabel was not an insured because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Prudential, and thus Hartford had no duty to defend him in an underlying tort lawsuit where Leahy claimed injury from a hole left by a removed real estate signpost that Zabel had installed. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' cross-motion, holding that Zabel was not an employee based on undisputed facts from his deposition showing he operated his own business, received no W-2 forms, controlled his own work methods and schedule, and had numerous other clients. The court applied a multifactor test from Washington case law to determine employment status, distinguishing the facts from a prior decision involving greater employer control, and dismissed the defendants' related counterclaims for bad faith and other violations.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action in which Pacific Bioscience Laboratories alleges that Pretika Corporation's SonicDermabrasion Facial Brush infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,320,691. Pretika moved to stay the litigation after the USPTO granted its request for ex parte reexamination of all asserted claims based on prior art raising a substantial new question of patentability. The court granted the stay, applying a three-factor test and finding that reexamination was likely to simplify the issues given USPTO statistics on claim amendments or cancellations, that discovery remained limited with trial still over ten months away, and that the plaintiff would not suffer undue prejudice because it could seek to lift the stay if circumstances changed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between competing manufacturers of vehicle laptop mounting systems, National Products Inc. (NPI) and Gamber-Johnson LLC. NPI sued Gamber-Johnson under the Lanham Act for false advertising based on statements in a promotional video that compared the safety of the companies' products. After a jury found deliberate false advertising and awarded NPI $10 million in damages, the court ruled on post-trial motions. It granted in part Gamber-Johnson's motion for judgment as a matter of law, reducing the damages award to $492,332 under the equitable principles of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) to reflect the defendant's profits rather than an excessive penalty, while denying other challenges to the verdict. The court also granted NPI's request for a permanent injunction and attorney's fees but denied prejudgment interest, and it struck unadmitted trial materials.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, SaleHoo Group sued the anonymous operator of the website salehoosucks.com, a site criticizing SaleHoo's business, for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and defamation, then sought to subpoena the site operator's identity from domain registrar GoDaddy. The defendant moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it violated First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. The court granted the motion and quashed the subpoena, holding that the plaintiff failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing of likelihood of consumer confusion for the trademark claims or the elements of defamation under Washington law to overcome the right to anonymous online expression. The court noted that the site's content, including its explicit criticism and commercial links, did not support a prima facie case strong enough to unmask the speaker at this stage, while leaving open the possibility of future motions.

free speechprocedure

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a construction defect claim, where a California contractor sued a Washington subcontractor and later sought to enforce rights assigned from the subcontractor against its insurer after a settlement in underlying California litigation. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on choice of law, holding that Washington law governs the contract and tort claims arising from the commercial general liability policy. The core reasoning applied the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, determining that Washington had the most significant relationship to the policy and parties because the policy was purchased in Washington by a Washington company for work centered there, while California's interests were less dominant given the parties' locations and the nature of the claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns homeowners who refinanced their mortgage and later defaulted, leading to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under Washington's Deed of Trust Act; they sued Chase, MERS, QLS, and others alleging improper trustee appointment, unauthorized beneficiary status, missing disclosures, and related claims including emotional distress and TILA violations. The court granted Chase and MERS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice, but denied the motion as to QLS. The core reasoning was that the pleaded facts failed to state viable claims against Chase and MERS under the applicable statutes governing deeds of trust, note possession, and beneficiary assignments, while QLS's role presented factual issues that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over the domain name vericheck.com, which plaintiff David Lahoti registered in 2003 after tracking it for years; Vericheck, Inc. had long used the VERICHECK mark for its electronic payment services and sought to obtain the domain through prior negotiations and arbitration under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Lahoti filed suit seeking declaratory relief that his registration and use did not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) or other Lanham Act provisions, while Vericheck counterclaimed for ACPA violations, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related state claims. Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, the court found that Lahoti had registered and used the domain in bad faith with knowledge of Vericheck's mark, including by offering it for sale at high prices and linking to competitors, and that he engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting. The court therefore ordered transfer of the domain to Vericheck, awarded the maximum $100,000 in statutory damages under the ACPA, and granted Vericheck its attorneys' fees and costs under the Lanham Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act, deeming the case exceptional due to Lahoti's willful conduct and litigation tactics.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a dispute between competitors National Products, Inc. (NPI) and Gamber-Johnson LLC in the market for vehicle laptop mounting systems sold primarily to emergency responders. NPI brought claims under the Lanham Act for false advertising based on statements in Gamber-Johnson's promotional video "The Mounting Evidence," which compared safety and other features of the companies' products, as well as related state law claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying the motion on the Lanham Act claim as to most challenged statements because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding literal falsity, deception, materiality, and injury, but granting it on specific statements about steel thickness, key locks, and theft deterrence. The court granted summary judgment on the state law claims because NPI failed to show the required nexus to public interest or potential for repetition of the conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a proposed class action by plaintiffs against Dell Inc. alleging that certain Inspiron laptop computers had inherent defects in their cooling systems, power supplies, and motherboards. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment, based on Dell’s marketing and alleged concealment of the defects. Dell moved to dismiss, raising issues including choice of law between Texas and Washington and the sufficiency of the pleadings. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend within 30 days while allowing other claims to proceed. The decision applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards, Washington choice-of-law rules, and requirements for pleading fraud claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved environmental organizations challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of incidental take permits to J.L. Storedahl & Sons for expanded gravel mining near the East Fork Lewis River, which would affect endangered fish species. The permits were granted under the Endangered Species Act after the agencies prepared biological opinions and an environmental impact statement under NEPA. The court reviewed whether the agencies properly established the environmental baseline by considering Storedahl's unfulfilled state-law reclamation obligations from prior mining activities. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the Services acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to include those preexisting reclamation duties in the baseline analysis, and remanded the matter for further consideration.

environment

This case involves Attachmate Corporation, a Washington-based software company, suing the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County (Jackson Memorial Hospital), a Florida entity, for copyright infringement and breach of end-user license agreements related to terminal emulator software products that Jackson had purchased and installed over many years. Jackson moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer the case to Florida. The court denied both requests, finding that Jackson's repeated purchases, license agreements, payments sent to Washington, and communications with Attachmate employees in Washington established sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction under Washington's long-arm statute and due process. The court also concluded that a forum selection clause in the agreements did not mandate transfer and that the relevant convenience factors did not outweigh Attachmate's choice of its home forum.

procedurebusiness & regulatory