Justin Lowe Quackenbush

This case involves a securities class action brought by a pension fund against Ambassador's Group and its executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a). The plaintiff claimed that the company made misleading public statements during the class period by failing to disclose the loss of its primary middle school mailing list, which accounted for a significant portion of its business, and instead using an inadequate replacement list that led to poor performance and a subsequent stock price drop. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state a claim, inadequate pleading under the PSLRA, and lack of a strong inference of scienter. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the alleged omission rendered the company's statements misleading and that the executives' positions and involvement in core operations supported a sufficient inference of scienter, including for statements made on conference calls where they were present.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Newmont USA Ltd. and Dawn Mining seeking partial summary judgment against three insurers (Continental, OneBeacon, and INA) for allegedly breaching their duty to defend in an underlying CERCLA action concerning pollution and cleanup costs at the Midnite Mine uranium site in Washington. The court granted the motion in part, ruling that Continental and INA had breached the duty to defend under their policies but that OneBeacon owed no such duty because its 1969-1972 policy did not cover the relevant occurrences. The court denied summary judgment on the claims of bad faith and violations of the Consumer Protection Act against all three insurers, finding the record insufficiently developed on issues such as the insurers' conduct and any resulting harm to the plaintiffs. The decision rested on analysis of the policy language regarding coverage for property damage from occurrences, the allegations in the EPA's complaint, and the lack of evidence supporting the bad faith elements.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

In Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co., a former gasoline tanker truck driver and his wife sued ConocoPhillips alleging that his acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) resulted from occupational exposure to benzene in the company's gasoline products, bringing claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. The court granted the defendant's motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses on causation grounds, finding their opinions unreliable under the Daubert standard due to insufficient scientific support, lack of peer review, and other methodological flaws. Consequently, the court also granted summary judgment on both general and specific causation, determining that the plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence to establish a causal link between the exposure and the disease, leading to dismissal of the case with prejudice.

torts & liability

This case involves the United States seeking summary judgment to recover over $12.8 million in response costs incurred through 2004 for investigations and studies at the Midnite Mine Superfund Site from defendants Newmont USA Limited and Dawn Mining Company under CERCLA. The defendants did not dispute the total amount spent but challenged recovery of certain costs as inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan, including duplicative sampling and actions by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding most costs as recoverable while excluding approximately $520,000 in agency costs that the government conceded and identifying genuine factual issues on whether other sampling was unnecessary or the EPA's remedy selection arbitrary. The ruling rested on the undisputed cost records, concessions at oral argument, and the requirement to view evidence favorably to the defendants on NCP consistency challenges.

environmentprocedure

This case concerned whether the United States qualified as an "owner" under CERCLA and thus could be held liable for cleanup costs at the Midnite Mine Superfund Site, a former uranium mine on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue. The court found that the United States had acquired the land as conqueror without any treaty or cession, created the reservation by executive order without congressional action transferring ownership, and retained plenary authority over the lands, including by opening mineral rights to entry under federal mining laws. On this basis, the court denied the United States' motion and granted the defendants' motion, holding that the United States is an owner under CERCLA.

environmentfederal powerproperty

This case involves a dispute in the bankruptcy proceedings of the Catholic Diocese of Spokane over whether individual parishes or the diocese itself owns the real property of churches and schools. The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to the Committee of Tort Litigants, ruling that the diocese owned the properties outright with no interest held by the parishes. On appeal, the District Court reversed this decision, finding that the parishes had at least a beneficial interest in the properties based on evidence of their purchase, construction, and use, and that the diocese held title only in a trustee-like capacity. The court remanded the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings, while affirming the denial of the diocese's cross-motion for summary judgment due to remaining factual issues.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved Seabury & Smith alleging that its former employees Edward Eugenio and Gerard Bulger breached their non-compete agreements by joining Payne Financial Group and soliciting former Seabury clients, and that Payne tortiously interfered with Seabury's business relationships. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the non-compete covenants were reasonable, enforceable, and unambiguous as a matter of law. It found that the first three elements of the tortious interference claim were established, but denied summary judgment on breach of the covenants and on the full tortious interference claim due to remaining factual disputes regarding whether the defendants breached the agreements and acted with improper means. The reasoning centered on viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants and applying Washington state law on contract interpretation and tort claims.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, Duane Garvais, a Bureau of Indian Affairs police officer assigned to the Spokane Tribe reservation, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the Spokane Tribal Court's jurisdiction to prosecute him on charges of misappropriating drug buy money. Garvais argued he was not an "Indian" under federal law for purposes of tribal criminal jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) and 25 U.S.C. § 1153, citing his lack of enrollment or eligibility in any federally recognized tribe, limited Indian blood quantum (at most 1/16th Colville and smaller fractions of other tribes), adoption by a non-Indian stepfather, and minimal ties to Indian communities after his parents' divorce. The court granted the petition, holding that Garvais was not legally an Indian based on factors including blood quantum, non-enrollment, adoption and upbringing in non-Indian settings, and lack of recognition as a tribal member, and therefore the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over him.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights

This case involves a railroad conductor who tripped and fell on an air hose left on the floor of a locomotive cab while boarding the train for work, claiming injury under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to establish the defendant's liability as a matter of law and to bar the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The court granted the motion, holding that the undisputed evidence showed the air hose created a tripping hazard in violation of LIA regulations requiring locomotive cabs to be kept free of such hazards. Because the LIA is a strict liability safety statute, any violation contributing to the injury precludes consideration of the employee's contributory negligence under FELA. The ruling relied on deposition testimony confirming the hose's presence and position as the cause of the fall, along with federal inspection requirements.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned defendant Mrs. Holstrom's motion for attorney fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment after the government dismissed with prejudice a federal indictment charging her with arson with intent to commit mail fraud, which followed her acquittal in state court on related arson charges. The court denied the motion, concluding that the defendant had not shown the government's position was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. The reasoning focused on the insufficiency of evidence regarding alleged flaws in the ATF agent's investigation and reports, the decision to pursue federal charges after the state acquittal, and compliance with the Department of Justice Petite policy, while noting the government's prompt dismissal once concerns arose.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns taxpayers Dennis and Pamela Danner who filed a 1997 joint federal income tax return reporting zero income and attaching arguments that they owed no income tax liability under the Internal Revenue Code, prompting the IRS to assess a $500 frivolous return penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 and initiate levy proceedings under 26 U.S.C. § 6331 to collect it. The Danners sued to invalidate the levy, claiming improper statutory notice (asserting Form 17 was required instead of the form used), defects in the Collections Due Process hearing under 26 U.S.C. § 6330, bias by the appeals officer, and entitlement to document production. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the return was frivolous as a matter of law, the penalty and levy procedures complied with the Code, the notice was adequate, the hearing was fair without bias or abuse of discretion, and no legal basis existed for the requested documents or alternative forms.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a challenge by conservation groups to the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a timber harvest and restoration project in the Colville National Forest aimed at addressing a Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreak. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding deficiencies in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and issued an injunction halting further implementation of the project until a supplemental EIS is prepared. The deficiencies included inadequate analysis of soil conditions and potassium levels, cumulative impacts from other projects, funding feasibility for non-harvest alternatives, and effects of deferred timber sales on restoration efforts. The court reasoned that changes in project scope and incomplete environmental assessments violated requirements for thorough review under applicable environmental laws.

environmentprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, Blake Pirtle challenged his 1993 Washington state convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and resulting death sentence, based on the prosecution's use of his statement "you might as well shoot me now" made while in police custody without Miranda warnings. The statement was not disclosed to defense counsel before trial as required by court order and was introduced and argued by the prosecutor during both the guilt and penalty phases. The court found that the admission of the statement violated Pirtle's Fifth Amendment rights, that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or challenge it, and that the state courts' contrary rulings were unreasonable applications of Supreme Court precedent. It held these errors harmless as to the guilt phase but prejudicial as to the special sentencing hearing where the jury imposed the death penalty. The court therefore conditionally granted the petition, ordering the state to provide a new sentencing hearing without use of the statement or else vacate the death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Bernard Daines, former owner of Packet Engines, and Alcatel over tax reporting for $6 million held in escrow as part of a $290 million stock purchase and merger. Daines sought a declaratory judgment that Alcatel improperly directed the issuance of 1099 forms reporting the escrow funds as income, plus an order to rescind them, or alternatively enforcement of an agreement for Alcatel to advance any resulting tax liability. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the declaratory judgment claim with prejudice, finding no ripe case or controversy under Article III and that the Declaratory Judgment Act and Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from resolving issues that would directly affect tax liability determinations reserved for the IRS and Tax Court, citing Ninth Circuit precedent such as Noland. The alternative claim was dismissed without prejudice as unripe since no IRS audit or assessment had occurred.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose after plaintiffs Harold and Idella Everett had their criminal convictions for child sexual abuse overturned following a reference hearing that found their daughter’s allegations unreliable due to coercive interrogation techniques by defendant police officer Robert Perez. Plaintiffs then filed a federal civil rights action against Perez, the City of Wenatchee, and others, and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that collateral estoppel required the court to adopt the state court findings on misconduct and recantation. The court denied the motion, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the issues litigated in the criminal reference hearing were not identical to those presented in the civil claims and because the parties and burdens of proof differed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff John Ellis's claim for short-term and long-term disability benefits under Egghead Software's ERISA-governed plans after he was laid off in March 1997 due to fibromyalgia and related symptoms that limited his physical capacity. Following a de novo trial on the administrative record, the court ruled that Ellis qualified as disabled under both plans, entitling him to STD benefits for 90 days and ongoing LTD benefits beyond the initial 24-month period, along with prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The decision rested on undisputed medical records documenting Ellis's fibromyalgia, joint pain, fatigue, and functional limitations, corroborated by a vocational evaluation showing he could not perform his prior role or any gainful occupation, with no evidence of improvement in his condition.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned John Ellis's claim for short-term and long-term disability benefits under Egghead Software's ERISA plans, which were administered by CNA and denied on the ground that Ellis failed to provide objective medical evidence of his fibromyalgia despite his physician's reports of trigger points and other symptoms. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the court focused on the proper standard of review in light of recent Ninth Circuit precedent. The court held that de novo review applies to both plans because CNA exhibited an actual conflict of interest by imposing an objective-evidence requirement that contradicted the plans' terms, its own stated policies for fibromyalgia, and the inherently subjective nature of the condition, and by shifting its demands after Ellis supplied the requested documentation. This evidence of conflict created a presumption that the administrator failed to rebut. The court therefore set the matter for further proceedings under de novo review.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a state prison inmate's challenge to the denial of his application for the Extended Family Visitation program under a revised Department of Corrections directive, DOP 590.100. Plaintiff Karlton Daniel, who married after his incarceration, argued that the policy's restrictions—such as requiring pre-incarceration marriage, excluding certain custody levels, and allowing exclusion for domestic violence history—were improperly applied to him following a 1995 policy change prompted by a violent incident and legislative action. The court granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment and in part the plaintiff's cross-motion, resulting in a remand of the visitation request to prison officials for further consideration under the directive. The reasoning centered on the superintendent's discretion under the revised policy, which was enacted to address safety concerns, and the application of eligibility criteria to the plaintiff's circumstances.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Petitioner Olaf Karr's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutional validity of his 1966 California state convictions for armed robbery, which had been used to enhance his 1991 federal sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) for felon-in-possession of a firearm. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over collateral attacks on expired state convictions used to enhance a federal sentence. The core reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedent in Custis v. United States, which bars such challenges except where the defendant was denied counsel, citing concerns for the finality of judgments and Congress's intent in AEDPA to limit habeas relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from an injury to volunteer EMT Marta Maynard when she was thrown from an ambulance during patient unloading in 1994, leading to negligence and product liability claims against the hospital district and cot manufacturer Ferno-Washington. The court considered cross-motions for partial summary judgment on whether EMT Barry Keller was negligent as a matter of law (and hospital liability), whether Ferno-Washington provided adequate warnings, and a motion to strike affidavits regarding prior incidents. It denied all three motions, holding that the Washington Good Samaritan statute (RCW 4.24.300) does not immunize simple negligence during transport when the claim involves injury to a non-patient and that genuine disputes of material fact remain on foreseeability, negligence, causation, and warning adequacy. The rulings rest on the requirement that summary judgment is inappropriate unless reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare