Benjamin Hale Settle

The case involved the EEOC's Title VII sexual harassment class action against Grays Harbor Community Hospital on behalf of affected individuals. The hospital moved for court intervention to appoint a magistrate judge to help communicate a proposed comprehensive settlement release covering both federal claims and potential state-law claims of class members. The EEOC opposed the motion, arguing it lacked authority to release state claims not included in its complaint. The court denied the motion, relying on Supreme Court precedent that the EEOC is the master of its own case with authority to enforce Title VII in the public interest while supplementing, rather than replacing, individuals' private rights of action, and noting alternative means exist to address concerns like double recovery.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case involved owners of manufactured home parks challenging two City of Tumwater ordinances that created a new Manufactured Home Park zoning district and imposed related standards, claiming the measures effected a regulatory taking, violated substantive due process and equal protection under federal and state constitutions, and constituted illegal spot zoning. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on all claims, denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that the ordinances did not deprive owners of all economically viable use of their property, were not unduly oppressive, advanced legitimate public interests consistent with the city's comprehensive plan under Washington's Growth Management Act, and did not involve arbitrary or unjustified differential treatment, with the claims failing as facial challenges.

propertycivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Kirkland v. Emhart Glass S.A., plaintiff Michael Kirkland sued the defendants for injuries from a 2008 workplace accident involving an Individual Section Machine at a glass packaging plant, alleging design defects and inadequate warnings under Washington's Product Liability Act (WPLA). The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on five theories of liability, including failure-to-warn claims and design defect claims based on consumer expectations tests, while leaving a risk-utility design defect claim intact. The court denied the motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain for a jury on whether the product was unsafe beyond ordinary consumer expectations, proximate cause, and related standards, and that the consumer expectations test supplies an independent basis for liability under the WPLA.

torts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer Canal Indemnity Company against its insured Adair Homes, a homebuilder, seeking a ruling that two commercial general liability policies provided no coverage for claims by homeowners Daniel and Tammy Pearson and their minor son for bodily injury from mold exposure and property damage allegedly caused by faulty window, door, sheathing, and siding installation during construction of their home. The court granted Canal's motion for summary judgment, declaring that the policies afforded no coverage and that Canal had no duty to defend or indemnify Adair Homes in the underlying consolidated state-court lawsuits. The core reasoning was that the alleged water intrusion and resulting damages occurred after construction was completed and accepted by the Pearsons in May 2002, with no evidence that personal property was damaged during the policy periods while construction was ongoing, and that Adair Homes failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on coverage. The court also denied Adair Homes' motion for reconsideration, finding no manifest error or new facts or authority.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs suing Clark County defendants for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following a death, prompting the defendants to file a counterclaim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs moved to strike the counterclaim under Washington's newly enacted Anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against strategic lawsuits aimed at chilling speech and petition rights. The court determined that the statute applies retroactively to the counterclaim because it is remedial and procedural in nature, altering the method of proving the claim without affecting any vested substantive rights. Consequently, the court granted limited discovery to the defendants and renoted the motion to strike for further briefing.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilityfree speech

The case involved a homeowner, Wallis, who sued IndyMac Federal Bank, its successor Wells Fargo, and the FDIC as receiver after defaulting on a $577,000 loan secured by her home, seeking to enjoin a nonjudicial foreclosure based on questions about the foreclosing entity's possession of the note and an alleged Truth in Lending Act violation. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust the FDIC's administrative claims process, waiver of claims under Washington law for not enjoining the trustee's sale, and lack of evidence for the TILA claim. Wallis, proceeding pro se, filed untimely and unsupported responses and did not properly oppose the motions despite notice. The court granted the motions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against the FDIC, that Wallis had waived post-sale challenges by failing to enjoin the foreclosure, and that no material facts supported her TILA allegations. The opinion also addressed procedural defaults under local rules and federal summary judgment standards.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Higher Taste, a nonprofit religious organization, challenged a Tacoma Metro Park District resolution that prohibited the sale or offering of goods near the entrance, pathways, and parking areas of the Point Defiance Zoo, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their distribution of message-bearing T-shirts promoting vegetarianism and related principles. The group had previously operated in those areas since 1993 but faced increasing restrictions after the 2005 resolution and subsequent enforcement actions. The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits because the resolution, though content-neutral in a public forum, was not narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests and left no adequate alternative channels for expression. It also determined that irreparable harm from the loss of constitutional rights, a balance of equities, and the public interest all supported injunctive relief pending full resolution of the case.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involves plaintiff Bobbi L. Holzberg seeking judicial review of the denial of her applications for disability insurance and SSI benefits, based on claimed impairments such as fibromyalgia, PTSD, diabetes, and obesity. The ALJ found her not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation process after determining she had the residual functional capacity for sedentary work with limitations and could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers. The magistrate judge's report, adopted by the district court, concluded that the ALJ had erred in evaluating the medical evidence, assessing credibility, and other steps but recommended reversal without an award of benefits. The court therefore remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the report's findings.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that defendants, including Francisco Abellan and related companies, engaged in an illegal scheme to sell unregistered shares of GHLT Technologies stock to the public without disclosures, followed by a fraudulent promotional campaign that allowed them to sell shares for over $13.5 million. The court granted the SEC's unopposed motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants violated securities registration requirements by falsely claiming a private sale exemption and engaged in misleading promotions. Based on uncontroverted facts showing high scienter and egregious conduct, the court imposed a permanent penny stock bar on the lead defendant.

business & regulatory

The case involved an insurance company's suit seeking to rescind disability policies issued to the defendant, who counterclaimed under Washington's Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) alleging unreasonable denial of benefits and seeking increased damages up to three times actual damages. The defendant moved for a jury trial on the issue of those increased damages under RCW 48.30.015(2), which states that the court may award them. The district court granted the motion, holding that in a federal diversity action the Seventh Amendment preserves the jury-trial right for claims seeking punitive damages, which are traditional legal relief, and that Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 and 39 therefore require a jury determination despite the state statute's allocation of the decision to the judge.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case concerned a coverage dispute under two successive "claims-made and reported" insurance policies that a Washington nonprofit of manufactured home landlords purchased from St. Paul Mercury Insurance. The underlying lawsuit against the plaintiff was filed in January 2004, during the first policy period, but the plaintiff did not notify the insurer until August 2007 at the earliest, after both policies had expired. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policies unambiguously required written notice during the policy or discovery period as a condition precedent to coverage. Because the notice dates were undisputedly untimely, the court held that coverage was precluded regardless of any factual disputes about exact notice timing or other issues raised by the plaintiff.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Doe v. Reed, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Washington Secretary of State from releasing under the state's Public Records Act the names and contact information of individuals who signed petitions supporting Referendum Measure 71, arguing that such disclosure violated their First Amendment rights by risking threats, harassment, and reprisals. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the motion after finding that the case raised serious First Amendment questions concerning protected political speech in the referendum process. Applying strict scrutiny, the court determined that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, that they would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of equities favored them, and that the public interest supported preventing potential constitutional violations. The decision was based on precedents recognizing that compelled disclosure of petition signers can burden associational and expressive rights absent narrow tailoring to a compelling state interest.

free speechelectionscivil rights

The case involves a construction developer, Point Ruston, and a related hotel developer, Silver Cloud, suing a carpenters' union and its representatives over protests, leafleting, and other actions taken after Point Ruston hired a non-union subcontractor on a contaminated former smelter site. The plaintiffs asserted federal claims under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act for secondary boycott activities, along with state-law tortious interference and defamation claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Section 303 claims and the contract-based interference claims are preempted by federal labor law but that the defamation claim is not. The core reasoning is that Section 303 provides the exclusive federal remedy for damages arising from peaceful union secondary activities and displaces conflicting state tort claims, while defamation remains available as it addresses conduct outside the scope of the federal scheme.

labor & employmentfederal powertorts & liability

In Carter v. Gregoire, plaintiffs challenged Washington state legislation (SHB 2361) that altered rules for Medicaid-funded personal care services, claiming it violated the ADA, the Supremacy Clause, the federal Medicaid statute, the Equal Protection Clause, and various state laws. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of any claim, noting that the state legislature has authority over policy decisions within its scope and that federal approval requirements did not clearly invalidate the law on the record presented.

healthcarecivil rightsfederal power

This case involves prisoners challenging the Washington State Department of Corrections' extended family visitation policy, which sets eligibility criteria including a requirement that spouses must have been legally married to the inmate prior to the current conviction, excludes certain custody levels, and includes limited grandfathering provisions for pre-1995 participants. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in part, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment while reserving ruling on injunctive relief and requesting additional briefing. The core reasoning rested on Eleventh Amendment immunity barring claims against the DOC and official-capacity damages claims, along with the conclusion that the policy did not violate any constitutional rights.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case concerns a dispute between Leslie and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company over whether the insurer improperly charged rates higher than those it had filed with the state Insurance Commissioner, involving claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and common law theories. The court had previously dismissed several of the plaintiff's claims but allowed a bad faith CPA claim to proceed. On reconsideration, the court clarified that state insurance law prohibits title insurers from deviating from filed rates but ultimately denied the plaintiff's motion to reinstate her per se CPA violation claim and common law claims, while denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim. The decisions were based on interpretations of RCW 48.29.140 and related statutes regarding rate filing requirements and the scope of private actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Western Protectors Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders, Mr. Shaffer and Ms. Waters, against claims brought in state court by the guardians ad litem of two minors. The underlying state action alleged personal injuries arising from Mr. Shaffer's guilty plea to communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. The court granted in part and denied in part the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policies' coverage for personal injury included the invasion of privacy claim and that the sexual abuse and intentional act exclusions did not clearly bar coverage for that claim. The core reasoning focused on the policy definitions of occurrence and personal injury, the scope of the exclusions, and the principle that an insurer must defend if any claim is potentially covered.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedurecriminal law

The case concerned a challenge by plaintiff Wild Bainbridge to actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in addressing unauthorized wetland filling on Bainbridge Island property owned by Mainlander Services Corp., which had ties to prior violations by a previous owner under the Clean Water Act. The Corps had determined that Mainlander filled about 0.10 acres and issued an after-the-fact nationwide permit to resolve the violation after reviewing historical field data, sketches, and site investigations that showed the fill area was limited. The plaintiff contended that the Corps underestimated the fill extent, relied on flawed or outdated calculations from 1991, and failed to conduct a proper wetland delineation. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the Corps' cross-motion, and dismissed all claims against the Corps, holding that the agency's decisions were not arbitrary and capricious given the evidence in the administrative record.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada, who faced court-martial charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for missing movement to Iraq and making public statements criticizing the war's legality. After an initial court-martial proceeding involving a stipulation of facts that did not result in a final verdict or sentence, a second court-martial was scheduled, prompting Watada to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted the petitioner's emergency motion for a preliminary injunction staying the second court-martial proceedings, finding that Watada demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from the constitutional violation, a favorable balance of equities, and that public interest supported protecting Fifth Amendment rights. The court's reasoning centered on the protections against double jeopardy applying equally to service members, the exhaustion of military remedies, and the availability of habeas review to prevent the injury before it occurs. The injunction remains in effect pending resolution of the habeas petition.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure