In United States v. Burke, the defendant faced a new federal indictment for escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) after he failed to return to a residential reentry center (RRC) on April 27, 2010; his placement at the RRC had been imposed as a condition of supervised release following completion of an earlier prison term. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, concluding that the defendant was not in the requisite 'custody' for purposes of the escape statute. The court reasoned that the RRC restrictions were analogous to probation rather than imprisonment, drawing on Ninth Circuit precedent such as United States v. Baxley that treats supervised-release violations as grounds for revocation hearings rather than escape prosecutions, and distinguished cases involving custody during an active prison sentence or pretrial detention.
This case involved a dispute over aviation fuel left in storage tanks at an airport after Exxon Mobil terminated its lease with the Port of Moses Lake at the end of 2008. Exxon had contracted with a local agent to clean the tanks and attempted to sell the remaining fuel (approximately 403,579 gallons) to Freeman Holdings of Washington, LLC (FHW) or another buyer, but FHW took possession of the fuel without payment and sold it after assuming the lease. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions, denying Freeman's motion for summary judgment, denying FHW's motion for partial summary judgment (in part as moot), granting Exxon's motion on the defendants' counterclaims, and granting in part Exxon's motion on its conversion claim. The rulings were based on findings that Exxon retained title to the fuel, FHW's retention and sale of it constituted conversion, and triable issues remained regarding Freeman's personal liability as an LLC member. The court ordered the parties to mediate the remaining claims.
business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure
This case involved the Colville Tribe and one of its members challenging Washington state's enforcement of hunting safety laws, such as the prohibition on possessing a rifle with a round in the magazine inside a motor vehicle, against tribal members exercising off-reservation 'in common' hunting rights on the North Half lands under the 1891 Agreement ratified by Congress. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials, arguing the state lacked authority to apply its laws in this context. The court addressed a motion to dismiss these claims by establishing a legal standard drawn from treaty and Indian law precedents: state hunting safety regulations may apply to tribal members only if they are nondiscriminatory, reasonable and necessary for public safety, and necessary in the interest of safety when applied specifically to Indians. The court granted and denied the motion in part after analyzing the interplay between state police powers and tribal treaty rights, while noting differences between tribal and state rules on loaded firearms in vehicles.
The case involved PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) seeking a preliminary injunction against former branch manager Ronald Thomas and his new employer Prime Lending to stop alleged breaches of non-solicitation, non-recruitment, and trade-secret confidentiality agreements signed while Thomas worked at National City. The agreements restricted Thomas from soliciting customers or employees and from using confidential information after leaving the bank. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief under applicable standards, including analysis of Ohio law governing the agreements. The court later denied a motion to alter or amend that ruling, confirming its application of state and federal precedent to the facts.
The case concerned Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital's challenge to Washington State Department of Health regulations implementing Certificate of Need requirements for elective percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, which limit the number of hospitals authorized to provide such services. The hospital alleged that the regulations violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by restraining competition and the dormant Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed both claims. It reasoned that the regulations were immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine because they implemented a clearly articulated state policy with active state supervision, and that the dormant Commerce Clause claim failed because Congress had not clearly authorized the regulations to override Commerce Clause limits but the plaintiff had not established an unconstitutional burden.
The case involved a dispute over the termination of a franchise agreement for a California hotel between Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc., a Washington-based chain, and MAK, LLC, the California-based franchisee and operator. Red Lion sued MAK for unpaid royalties and liquidated damages after ending the franchise due to alleged failures to complete required property improvements under the agreement's Property Improvement Plan. MAK counterclaimed, alleging violations of Washington's Franchise Investment Protection Act (FIPA) and Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), as well as breach of contract. The court granted Red Lion's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the FIPA and WCPA counterclaims, reasoning that FIPA did not apply because MAK's hotel operations occurred in California rather than Washington, and the WCPA claim depended on an underlying FIPA violation.
The case involves seasonal and migrant agricultural workers suing their employer, Rizzuti Farms, and related defendants under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (MSAWPA) and state wage laws for alleged failures to provide written employment terms, pay promised wages and bonuses, maintain accurate payroll records, disclose worker rights, ensure proper housing conditions, and for retaliating against workers who raised complaints. Plaintiffs included a main agricultural class and subclasses for retaliation and housing issues. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and ruled that both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part, based on undisputed facts such as the lack of written employment disclosures to migrant workers, disputes over wage promises and payments, and the need for further factual development on issues like retaliation intent and housing compliance.
The case concerned a copyright dispute between Numbers Licensing, LLC and bVisual USA, Inc. over ownership of source code for an internet-based audio and video conferencing system developed by contractor Rand Renfroe through Numbers Consulting. Numbers Licensing moved for a preliminary injunction against bVisual and related defendants, alleging infringement, while defendants moved to strike certain evidence. The court granted the motion to strike and denied the preliminary injunction, finding no written work-for-hire agreement existed and that the compensation structure, work arrangement, and copyright notices indicated bVisual likely held ownership or an implied license, so the plaintiff did not show a likelihood of success on the merits.
In this case, plaintiff Ron Kirk sued attorney Terry Gobel under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Washington Consumer Protection Act for allegedly improper debt collection practices in a prior state court action, including seeking attorney fees under certain statutes and costs for an unregistered process server. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment that neither Rooker-Feldman nor res judicata barred the claims, that Gobel qualified as a debt collector, that some but not all of the fee requests violated the FDCPA, and that Gobel could assert a bona fide error defense. The decision was based on the specific requests made in the state court complaint and default judgment motion, the contracts between the parties, and Washington law regarding process server registration and attorney fees.
This case involved a Hispanic sales agent who sued her employer for racial and national origin discrimination and hostile work environment, alleging nine incidents over five months including derogatory comments about her Mexican heritage, restrictions on displaying a Mexican flag, interruptions when speaking Spanish, and unequal treatment in leads and work assignments. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the claims and denied the defendant's Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony. The core reasoning addressed the admissibility of statements as party admissions, whether a supervisor's actions could be attributed to the company, and whether the volume and nature of incidents over a short employment period created triable issues of fact on the hostile work environment claim, distinguishing it from prior precedent.
