Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

This case involved a False Claims Act qui tam action filed under seal by a relator against University of Washington Physicians and related medical groups, alleging schemes to defraud federal Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. After a lengthy government investigation, the parties settled all civil claims, which the court approved, and the complaint along with the dismissal documents were unsealed. The Seattle Times moved to intervene and unseal the remaining court file, which consisted primarily of the government's ex parte requests for extensions of time to intervene and related orders. The government opposed unsealing, arguing that some documents contained sensitive investigative information, but the UW Plans withdrew their objections after review. The court granted the motion to unseal, reasoning that the FCA authorizes the court to decide on disclosure of in camera filings, that the documents described only routine procedures without revealing confidential techniques or ongoing investigations, and that public and media interest outweighed any potential harm.

procedurecriminal law

This case is a patent infringement action in which Vectra Fitness sued Icon Health & Fitness and Sears, alleging that Icon's fitness equipment products infringed Vectra's reissued U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,572. The court had previously ruled that certain Icon products literally infringed specific patent claims, leaving unresolved Icon's affirmative defenses of invalidity and estoppel as well as damages. The court denied Icon's motion for entry of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because the prior rulings did not fully dispose of the infringement claim or counterclaim, as validity and other issues remained. It granted Vectra's motion for summary judgment on the invalidity defenses, granted in part and denied in part Vectra's motion on equitable defenses, and denied Icon's motion for summary judgment on lost profits, applying standards for obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, laches, and patent damages law to the undisputed facts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Washington state regulations adopted by the WUTC that restricted telecommunications carriers' use and disclosure of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), such as call details and private account information, requiring explicit customer opt-in consent for most marketing uses and opt-out for others. Verizon challenged the rules as violating the First Amendment's protections for commercial speech, along with preemption and Commerce Clause claims. The court granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, denied the WUTC's, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the regulations. The decision rested on the conclusion that the rules burdened protected commercial speech without meeting the requirements of the Central Hudson test, while declining to address the other claims.

business & regulatoryfree speech

The case concerned the Airport Communities Coalition's challenge to a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Port of Seattle for the Third Runway Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which would fill wetlands with millions of cubic yards of material. Plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the permit was arbitrary and capricious due to inadequate analysis of alternatives, mitigation, water quality impacts, and related issues. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied plaintiff's motion, holding that the Corps' decision was not arbitrary or capricious because it was based on a rational connection to the facts, considered relevant factors without clear error, and complied with statutory requirements. Extra-record evidence submitted by the plaintiff was excluded as it did not meet the Ninth Circuit's narrow exceptions for such materials in APA review.

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved Precision Airmotive Corporation's claims against former Bendix employee Donald Rivera and his company Airflow Performance Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendants incorporated RSA-5DD1 fuel injection technology into their FM-series products. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court granted the motion in part and dismissed the claims with prejudice, holding that the limitations periods had expired because Precision had obtained and disassembled an Airflow FM-200 device by 1994 and thus knew or should have known of any misappropriation at that time under Washington's discovery rule. The court rejected Precision's attempt to invoke the discovery rule to delay accrual, finding no genuine issue of material fact and insufficient evidence that the facts could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns allegations by Vectra Fitness that Icon Health & Fitness and Sears infringe U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,572 through various WeiderPro and related exercise machines that allow multiple stations to share a single weight stack via a cable-and-pulley system. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on noninfringement and infringement of claims 7, 25, and 26, denying Icon’s motions and granting Vectra’s cross-motions for literal infringement. It applied prior claim constructions, including the meaning of “stops” as mechanical structures that abut adjacent parts to tension cables, and determined that the accused products’ structures and operation satisfy the claim limitations, particularly for the WeiderPro 9950 and similar models. The decision rests on the absence of genuine factual disputes and the products’ mechanical equivalence to previously adjudicated infringing devices.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a multi-district products liability litigation involving claims that phenylpropanolamine (PPA), an ingredient in over-the-counter cough, cold, and appetite suppressant products, causes hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes. Defendants moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert opinions on general causation under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and the Daubert standard. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding some expert testimony reliable based on epidemiological studies such as the Yale Hemorrhagic Stroke Project and supporting medical literature, while excluding other opinions lacking sufficient scientific foundation. The core reasoning involved assessing the reliability, acceptance, and methodological soundness of the proffered expert evidence according to Daubert factors.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

Vectra Fitness sued ICON Health & Fitness and Sears for patent infringement, alleging that two of their WeiderPro exercise machines literally infringed claims 25 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,572, which covers exercise machines with multiple stations that share a single weight stack connected by cables and pulleys. The court granted Vectra’s motion for partial summary judgment on literal infringement and denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. It found that the WeiderPro 9930 satisfies every element of both claims and the 9940 satisfies every element of claim 26, including the required floating pulleys, cables connected to exercise units, and stops that direct force to the load when any unit is used. The decision rested on a direct comparison of the claim language to the structure and operation of the accused products, with no genuine issues of material fact remaining.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved parents J.S. and T.S. seeking reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for unilaterally placing their son C.S. in a residential school in Montana after he struggled academically and behaviorally in the Shoreline School District. The Administrative Law Judge had ruled that the district provided a free appropriate public education through its evaluation and individualized education program, and that the child's significant disciplinary issues occurred primarily at home rather than at school. The district court reviewed the administrative record and granted the school district's motion for summary judgment while denying the parents' motion, concluding that the district was not adequately notified of the home behaviors and that its actions did not deny the student FAPE. The court found the evidence insufficient to show that additional information from private providers would have altered the district's assessment or that the IEP was inadequate.

civil rights

In this case, a class of plaintiffs sued FirstPlus Bank in federal court alleging violations of Washington consumer protection statutes and the federal Truth-in-Lending Act arising from the bank's lending practices. FirstPlus, which was undergoing court-supervised voluntary liquidation in California state court, moved for the federal court to abstain or stay the action pending completion of the state claims process. The district court granted the motion, holding that abstention was warranted under the Burford and Colorado River doctrines because federal adjudication would interfere with California's comprehensive regulatory scheme for orderly liquidation of the bank, risk inconsistent rulings and depletion of assets, and fail to conserve judicial resources given that any recovery would ultimately depend on the state proceeding.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a maritime wrongful death action in which the family of a fisherman whose vessel capsized in Alaskan waters sued the manufacturers of an allegedly defective life raft, seeking to recover under the enhanced injury doctrine for harm that the defect proximately caused beyond the initial accident. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment asking the court to rule that the doctrine applies under maritime law. The court denied the motion but held that the enhanced injury doctrine is a valid theory of recovery, reasoning that general maritime law provides no controlling rule on the issue and that district courts may look to state products liability precedents, such as Washington law recognizing liability for enhanced injuries from defective safety devices, when national uniformity is not required.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned challenges by environmental groups to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a plan to relocate a Caspian tern colony from Rice Island in the Columbia River estuary to reduce predation on salmon smolts, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's related permitting actions; the plaintiffs argued that the agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement. The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to strike extra-record evidence, for summary judgment, and for a permanent injunction, while denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on mootness grounds. It held that the EA was inadequate under NEPA because it lacked sufficient analysis of the plan's effectiveness, impacts on the birds, and cumulative effects over multiple years, and that the Fish and Wildlife Service could not rely on the deficient Corps documents. The court reasoned that judicial review was not moot due to ongoing and future agency actions, and that irreparable environmental harm to the birds justified an injunction requiring preparation of an EIS before further relocation or harassment efforts.

environmentfederal power

This case arose from a 2000 maritime allision in which the barge Harry A. Merlo, under tow by the Seaspan Queen and bareboat chartered to Seaspan International, Inc., struck a loading ramp at a Seattle pier, causing the ramp to later capsize and resulting in one worker's death and another's severe injury. Claimants moved to add the barge's value to the vessel owner's limitation fund under the Limited Liability Act, to compel joinder of the subsidiary charterer, and for partial summary judgment applying joint and several liability beyond the fund's cap. The court granted the motions to expand the fund and join the party, finding the barge an "offending vessel" under the dominant-mind doctrine, but denied summary judgment. It reasoned that the statutory limitation caps liability at the value of the involved vessels even where joint and several liability otherwise applies in admiralty.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case centered on a dispute over ownership of a 100-foot-wide strip of land along Lake Sammamish in Washington, originally part of a homestead patented in the 1880s and conveyed by deed in 1887 to a railway company for a right-of-way. King County acquired the former rail corridor through the federal Rails-to-Trails program and filed suit to quiet title against the current adjacent landowners, the Rasmussens, who asserted fee simple ownership and raised counterclaims alleging violations of constitutional rights and federal statutes. The court granted the County's motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, holding that the deed conveyed a fee simple interest (or at minimum a perpetual right-of-way) to the railway that passed to the County, that subsequent deeds excepted the strip from the chain of title, and that challenges to the Surface Transportation Board's railbanking order were outside the court's jurisdiction; it also struck overlength briefing and improper evidentiary materials. The Rasmussens' various counterclaims were dismissed accordingly.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In this case, debtor Dennis Saxman filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought discharge of his government-guaranteed student loans, including a large consolidation loan held by Educational Credit Management Corporation, on the ground that repayment would impose undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court found that repayment of the full ECMC loan would create undue hardship but discharged the entire loan because it believed existing precedent prohibited partial discharges. On appeal, the district court vacated and remanded the order. It held that the Ninth Circuit’s intervening decision in Graves v. Myrvang permits bankruptcy courts to discharge only the portion of a student loan that would cause undue hardship, rejecting the all-or-nothing approach of prior precedent as inconsistent with the statute’s equitable purpose.

procedure

The case involved judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income to plaintiff James, who alleged disability from asthma, obesity, fibromyalgia, and related pain starting in 1994. The plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by failing to consider her treating physician's opinion, equivalency to listed impairments, credibility of testimony, and residual functional capacity. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's final decision and remanding for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ did not properly weigh the treating physician's evidence or consider whether the combination of impairments equaled a listing, leaving unresolved issues that required additional review by the agency rather than an immediate award of benefits.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by parents to the Seattle School District's student assignment plan for oversubscribed high schools, which used a racial tiebreaker after sibling preference to promote racial diversity and reduce isolation in schools that deviated more than 15% from the district's overall 40% white/60% nonwhite student population. Plaintiffs argued that the tiebreaker violated Washington's Civil Rights Act (Initiative 200), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the policy. It reasoned that state law authorized the district's voluntary efforts to achieve integrated schools, the tiebreaker was narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of diversity and equal educational opportunity, and it did not constitute prohibited racial discrimination under the Initiative or federal law.

civil rights

This case concerned the allocation of the United States' share of the Pacific whiting fishery between treaty Indian tribes and non-Indian fishers under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Makah Tribe, the Secretary of Commerce, and the State of Oregon filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of a sliding-scale methodology for determining the treaty share. The court granted the Secretary's motion, granted the Makah's motion in part, and denied Oregon's motion, ruling that the allocation method lawfully implements treaty rights to fish at usual and accustomed grounds while complying with the Magnuson Act's requirements for fishery management plans. The court reasoned that the Secretary's approach reflects a reasoned balance of stock management obligations and federal treaty commitments, and that no biological features of whiting required allocation strictly by biomass distribution. The sliding-scale method was ordered to govern the United States' whiting fishery until changed by the Secretary, agreement of the parties, or further court order.

environmentcivil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over whether a stationary floating rowing club moored on Lake Union qualifies as a 'vessel' exempt from the City of Seattle's Shoreline Management Program and related building and land use codes. Petitioners Rome A. Ventura and Lake Union Crew, LLC sought to overturn a Notice of Violation issued by the City for unpermitted construction and use, arguing the structures met the code's definition of vessels or that the City was estopped from enforcing its rules; the City and intervenors contended the club was a fixed facility subject to permitting requirements. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the petitioners' claims, finding no genuine issue that the structures were not 'designed and used for navigation' under the city's definition and rejecting estoppel and preemption arguments, but denied summary judgment on the City's counterclaim for penalties and injunctive relief. The decision rested on undisputed facts showing the club's permanent location, lack of navigational equipment in use, and the applicable regulatory language.

business & regulatoryenvironmentpropertyprocedure

The case involved owners of floating structures on Lake Union who challenged a City of Seattle land use order finding that their moorage violated municipal zoning codes prohibiting unauthorized residential use in commercial and waterfront areas. The plaintiffs claimed violations of procedural and substantive due process, among other issues, after the city issued a notice of violation to the marina owner rather than directly to them, leading to their relocation. The court granted the city's motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the federal and state constitutional challenges because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a protected liberty or property interest and no due process violations occurred even assuming such interests existed. It denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion and remanded the remaining state law and ordinance claims to state court.

propertycivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory