Edward F. Shea

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.

criminal law

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

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.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

business & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Brunner v. Armstrong (In re Armstrong), above-median-income Chapter 13 debtors sought confirmation of a repayment plan that deducted the IRS Local Standards transportation ownership expense for a vehicle they owned outright, without any loan or lease payments. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected on the ground that this deduction improperly reduced the debtors' disposable income under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's confirmation order, holding that the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) allows debtors to claim the applicable Local Standards amount for vehicle ownership expenses as specified by the IRS, without requiring actual payments on the vehicle. The court based its decision on a grammatical and textual reading of the statute, concluding that it creates a straightforward expense calculation that does not condition the deduction on existing liens or payments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Salinas-Ruiz, the defendant moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with illegal reentry after prior deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, arguing that it failed to allege a prior conviction that would support a 20-year statutory maximum sentence instead of two years. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the indictment sufficient because it set forth the elements of the offense and included facts such as the date and location of the prior deportation. The court reasoned that Ninth Circuit precedent permits a sentencing judge to determine the existence of a qualifying prior conviction without it being charged in the indictment or proven to a jury, consistent with Almendarez-Torres. After the denial, the defendant entered a guilty plea, which rendered the remaining pretrial motions moot.

immigrationcriminal law

This case concerned a father's petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of his child, E.M., to Germany after the mother took the child to the United States in 2006. The court denied the petitioner's requests for an order directing the child's return to Germany, payment of legal costs, and other relief. The court's findings established that the parties had discussed relocation to the U.S., the mother had obtained the father's notarized permission for travel, and the mother was seeking employment outside Germany due to expiring work authorization and family health issues; it concluded the child would not be returned and that custody should be resolved in separate proceedings in Arizona or elsewhere. The decision emphasized that the court lacked jurisdiction over custody determinations themselves.

family law

The case concerned a challenge by Stevens County, local conservation and agricultural groups, and individual ranchers to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to phase out annual livestock grazing on the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, finding the use largely incompatible with the refuge's purposes under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Improvement Act, NEPA, the APA, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and intervenors, denying the plaintiffs' motion. It held that the FWS had properly exercised sound professional judgment in its compatibility analysis, that the prior comprehensive environmental impact statement satisfied NEPA without need for a separate assessment of the habitat management plan, and that ranchers possessed no protected property interest in renewal of grazing permits.

environmentfederal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether the United States' use of a Declaration of Taking to restrict an RV park on a 3.6-acre parcel constituted a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. The defendants had purchased the land subject to a perpetual easement reserved by the United States and BPA for electric power transmission, which included rights to clear the right-of-way and keep it clear of structures and vegetation. A Land Use Agreement permitted the RV park but explicitly warned that future transmission line upgrades could restrict or halt the use. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, finding that the easement already authorized the restrictions, the Declaration of Taking did not exceed those reserved rights, and just compensation was therefore $1.00.

propertyfederal power

The case concerned the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, a body created by state statute and funded through mandatory assessments on apple producers and dealers to conduct advertising, research, and promotion of Washington apples. The Commission sued for a declaration that its assessment structure was constitutional, while defendants sought summary judgment on the grounds that the assessments compelled private speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the Commission's claims, and entered declaratory relief holding the assessments unconstitutional. The core reasoning was that the Commission operated with insufficient state control over its message and governance to qualify as government speech, distinguishing it from cases like Glickman v. Wileman Brothers and instead aligning with the compelled-speech analysis in United States v. United Foods.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns whether mandatory assessments collected by the Washington State Apple Commission from apple growers to fund advertising, promotion, and research violate the growers' First Amendment rights against compelled speech. The court granted the intervening defendants' motions for preliminary injunctive relief, finding jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act analysis, a likelihood of success on the merits that the activities constituted neither government speech nor permissible commercial speech restrictions, and that the balance of hardships favored relief. Core reasoning addressed the applicability of precedents like United Foods, distinctions between taxes and regulatory fees, legislative fact-finding deference, and the requirements for injunctive relief under federal standards, while noting but not resolving related state constitutional claims.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the Department of Energy was required under the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement before draining liquid sodium from the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford as part of deactivation, a step that would render restart practically impossible. Benton County sought to enjoin the drainage and compel further environmental review, arguing that changed circumstances since the 1995 Environmental Assessment and 2000 Programmatic EIS warranted additional analysis. The court denied the County's motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction, granted the DOE's motion for summary judgment, and extended the existing injunction for 30 days. It held that the DOE's decision not to supplement prior analyses was not arbitrary and capricious because no significant new circumstances had arisen, that earlier decisions were not timely challenged, and that claims regarding final decommissioning were not ripe as no final agency decision existed.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case arose from a 1997 chemical explosion at the Plutonium Reclamation Facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, where worker plaintiffs and their family members sued under the Price-Anderson Act and state law for alleged radiation exposure. The court granted the defendants' motion to exclude the opinion testimony of plaintiffs' experts Dr. William W. Au and Wolfgang Hoffman under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding their dose estimation methods unreliable. It then granted summary judgment dismissing the federal public liability claims because the plaintiffs failed to show exposure exceeded the federal limit of 5 rems per year. The court retained jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

proceduretorts & liabilityenvironmentfederal power

The case concerns environmental organizations' challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's approval of the Douglas Fir Bark Beetle Project, which authorized logging over 19,000 acres in the Idaho Panhandle and Colville National Forests to address a bark beetle outbreak, restore ecosystems, and reduce fire fuels. Plaintiffs alleged that the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement and Records of Decision violated NEPA, NFMA, and the Clean Water Act by relying on inadequate old-growth habitat data, failing to ensure consistency with land and resource management plan standards for species viability and water quality monitoring, and insufficiently analyzing cumulative impacts on water, sediment, and fisheries. The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the agency's actions arbitrary and capricious in several respects, and issued a permanent injunction halting the project. The core reasoning centered on the absence of required data and monitoring under NEPA and NFMA, improper reliance on unvalidated models and state BMPs under the CWA, and incomplete cumulative effects analysis.

environment