Lonny R. Suko

In Story v. Napolitano, a female non-Mormon TSA employee at Pasco Airport claimed she endured repeated sex and religious discrimination and harassment from Mormon male supervisors, including derogatory comments about women and non-Mormons, unfair leave scrutiny, apparent demotions, performance improvement plans, and efforts to gather information for her termination. The defendant filed motions for summary judgment. The court examined the detailed factual allegations spanning 2002-2005, the scope of the underlying EEO complaint, the use of time-barred acts as background evidence, and the distinction between mixed-motive and single-motive discrimination frameworks to assess the viability of the claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious liberty

The case involved Muhammad Zahid Chaudhry, a Pakistani citizen, challenging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' denial of his naturalization application. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Chaudhry provided undisputed false testimony by failing to disclose his 1996 Australian fraud convictions on U.S. visa applications and during multiple naturalization interviews within the statutory period, and he failed to create a genuine issue of material fact about his intent or claimed memory lapses.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involves a coverage dispute under London Market Insurance policies issued to Teck Metals regarding liability for pollution at a site in Washington, specifically whether the policies' Qualified Pollution Exclusion Clause bars coverage. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether an actual conflict exists between British Columbia and Washington law in interpreting the clause's 'sudden, unintended and unexpected' language, and if so, which jurisdiction's law applies. The court concluded there was insufficient proof of an actual conflict, as British Columbia law on the clause is unsettled and does not clearly require a temporal element for 'sudden,' unlike some Ontario decisions. It therefore applied Washington law per Queen City Farms, under which the clause is ambiguous and construed against the insurer to allow coverage for unexpected and unintended pollution events.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Teck Metals and its London Market Insurers over the scope of coverage under successive excess liability insurance policies issued from 1972 to 1985 for pollution-related losses stemming from Teck's operations in British Columbia dating back to 1908. Teck sought a ruling that, once triggered, the policies require the insurers to indemnify all of Teck's losses up to policy limits without any allocation to Teck for periods when it lacked insurance. The court held that Washington law governs the policies under the significant relationship test, as there is no conflict with British Columbia law, and Washington precedent requires an "all sums" approach under which insurers must pay all covered losses without pro-rata allocation to the insured. The decision was based on the policy language promising to indemnify "all sums" for which the insured becomes liable due to an occurrence, and on the insurers' inability to rewrite that language after drafting it.

business & regulatoryenvironmenttorts & liability

This case concerned whether Teck Metals could recover costs for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study performed under a 2006 settlement agreement with the EPA at the Upper Columbia River Site as covered "damages" under its London Market Insurance policies. The policies indemnified the insured for sums it was obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law for property damage. Applying Washington law, the court granted Teck's motion for summary judgment and denied the insurers' cross-motion, holding that the response costs qualified as damages because they were incurred to resolve Teck's potential CERCLA liability for releases at the site, consistent with precedents such as Boeing Co. v. Aetna and Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Aetna. The ruling rested on the policy language covering liability imposed by law and the fact that the settlement effectively resolved claims that could have led to enforcement of an EPA order against Teck.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns disputes between Stanley Steemer International and its former franchisees, Rex Rozmus and the Fleetwood plaintiffs, regarding the termination of carpet cleaning franchises due to unpaid royalties, debts, and defaults on promissory notes following forbearance agreements. The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment while the defendant moved for summary judgment on the claims, which involved interpretations of franchise agreements, termination agreements, and potential implied covenants of good faith. The court reviewed undisputed facts showing material breaches by the franchisees, opportunities to cure, and subsequent agreements to transition the businesses, and applied contract principles under Washington law to conclude that no fiduciary relationship existed and that terminations were proper under the agreement terms. It granted the defendant's summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims based on the explicit integration clauses and absence of enforceable additional promises.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, an environmental nonprofit and a landowner challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's operation of the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery on Icicle Creek, alleging that the hatchery's water use and failure to maintain fishways violated Washington state water rights certificates and fishway laws, which in turn violated federal reclamation statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the alleged state-law violations did not create enforceable federal claims under the reclamation laws or provide a basis for APA review. The decision rested on the limits of federal jurisdiction over state water and fishway compliance issues tied to the hatchery's operations.

environmentfederal powerprocedureproperty

This case involved claims by Todd and Nicole Chism against Washington State Patrol detectives Rachel Gardner and John Sager under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that a search of their home and Todd Chism's arrest violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause, along with pendent state-law tort and negligence claims, all arising from a child pornography investigation triggered by CyberTipline reports linking the Chisms' address, credit card, and personal details to illicit websites. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the defendants' qualified immunity defense. The court concluded that qualified immunity applied because the officers reasonably relied on the NCMEC tips, Yahoo subscriber and login data, and credit-card information to establish probable cause for the warrants, with no showing that they knowingly presented false information to the issuing court or prosecutor, and any later interview statements or dropped charges did not eliminate that probable cause. The court also overruled an objection to supplemental fact statements and noted that the prosecutor's filing of charges carried a presumption of independent judgment.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Christina Balkenbush's claims against her former employer Ortho Biotech Products under the Washington Law Against Discrimination for age, gender, and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, as well as breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and wrongful wage withholding, all arising from her termination after an investigation into a February 2007 client dinner and related expense reports. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the defendant seeking dismissal of all claims and the plaintiff seeking partial summary judgment on disability discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wage claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's exhibits due to authentication issues being cured by supplemental declarations. Core reasoning examined whether the employer perceived the plaintiff as having a disability based on her short-term leave, the timing of internal decisions about her employment status, the circumstances of investigative interviews, and the lack of prior disciplinary history.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved counterclaims by defendant Teck Cominco Metals under CERCLA against the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, alleging the Tribes contributed to hazardous substance contamination in Lake Roosevelt and seeking cost recovery, contribution, and declaratory relief. The Tribes moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing they were not "persons" subject to liability under the statute. The court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaims with prejudice, holding that CERCLA's plain-language definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21) does not include Indian tribes, which are defined separately, and that there was no clear congressional intent to impose liability on tribes as sovereigns.

environmentfederal power

This case involved a defendant's motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle following his arrest for DUI, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Arizona v. Gant. The court determined that the search remained valid under Gant because the officers had probable cause to believe evidence relevant to the DUI offense, specifically an open container of alcohol visible in the vehicle, might be found inside. Alternatively, the court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply even if the search did not fully satisfy Gant, as the officers reasonably relied on pre-Gant precedent authorizing searches incident to arrest. The court therefore reaffirmed its prior order denying the motion to suppress.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved claims by the estate of a nursing home resident for neglect of a vulnerable adult, corporate negligence, and wrongful death arising from care provided at Life Care Center of Kennewick. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a voluntary arbitration agreement signed by the resident's attorney-in-fact at the time of admission. The court granted the motion, stayed the proceedings, and ordered arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and Washington Uniform Arbitration Act. It reasoned that the agreement was valid and enforceable, that the claims fell within its scope, and that the unavailability of the designated AAA forum did not invalidate the agreement because courts may appoint substitute arbitrators under federal and state law. The court also found that the signatory had authority to bind the resident and that the agreement was not unconscionable.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned Wild Fish Conservancy's challenge to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2006-2011 operation and maintenance plan for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery on Icicle Creek. The plaintiff alleged that the plan violated the Endangered Species Act by jeopardizing threatened bull trout through blocked migration routes and that the agency should have prepared an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and granted judgment to the federal defendants on all claims. It held that the agency's no-jeopardy biological opinion was not arbitrary and capricious and that no NEPA review was required.

environment

This case involves claims by the Yakama Nation and intervenor states and tribes against the United States under CERCLA for natural resource damages and injury assessment costs arising from releases of radionuclides and hazardous substances at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Defendants moved to partially dismiss the Second Claim (for assessment costs) and Third Claim (for damages) under Rule 12(b)(6), contending both were unripe under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(1) because no final remedial action had been selected for Hanford facilities on the National Priorities List. The court denied the motion, concluding that § 9613(g)(1)'s requirement for selection of remedial action applies only to actions for natural resource damages and not to separate claims for assessment costs, while the damages claim was already stayed so no further ripeness determination was needed at that time.

environmentprocedurefederal power

In Perry v. Rado, plaintiffs Dr. John Perry and his obstetrics and gynecology practice sued defendants including Associated Physicians for Women, individual doctors, and Kadlec Medical Center, alleging that the defendants conspired to revoke Dr. Perry's medical staff credentials at Kadlec through misuse of credentialing and quality assurance processes, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various Washington state laws. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The federal antitrust claim was dismissed with prejudice because the complaint alleged only harm to the plaintiff's personal business interests rather than an antitrust injury to competition, and the allegations were insufficient under Twombly to raise a reasonable expectation of discovering evidence of injury to competition. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved claims by Jeff and Amy Bertelsen and related parties against their former attorney Roger Harris and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act in connection with contingency fee agreements for marketing gas stations and representation in an ARCO lawsuit. The court found that the Bertelsens entered into valid retainer and contingency agreements in 2001, that a Tesoro lease-option transaction closed yielding fees under those agreements, and that Harris did not engage in egregious misconduct, breach the standard of care, or commit unfair billing practices. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove any basis for fee disgorgement, damages, or CPA recovery, and entered judgment for the defendants on all claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved claims of plant patent and trademark infringement by Van Well Nursery and Hilltop Nurseries against Mony Life Insurance and others concerning apple tree varieties and marks such as 'Scarlet Spur' and 'Smoothee.' The court granted Hilltop's motion to substitute Hilltop Fruit Trees, LLC as a plaintiff. It granted Van Well partial summary judgment on patent validity and infringement against certain defendants. On Mony Life's motion, the court declared both trademarks generic, dismissed the remaining infringement and related claims against Mony Life and others, canceled the 'Scarlet Spur' registration, but denied cancellation of the 'Smoothee' registration and declined to deem the case exceptional at that stage. The decisions rested on undisputed facts showing generic commercial usage of the terms and the expiration of the underlying patent.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved a copyright infringement claim by pro se plaintiff Tia Griffin against defendants J-RECORDS, the estate of Luther Vandross, and Richard Marx, alleging that their Grammy-winning song 'Dance With My Father' copied a distinctive seven-note melody and arrangement from her 1996 registered sound recording copyright in 'Heart of Gold.' The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The core reasoning was that a sound recording copyright protects only the specific fixed sounds and does not extend to the underlying musical composition or melody, and the plaintiff did not allege unauthorized reproduction or use of her actual recording.

propertyprocedure

The case Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States centered on a law firm's action for declaratory judgment asserting an attorney's fee lien of over $361,000 on a judgment fund recovered for its former client ERI in prior Court of Claims litigation against the United States, seeking priority over liens held by intervening judgment creditors and sureties as well as IRS tax liens on ERI, while also challenging the government's common-law and statutory setoff rights. The district court considered cross-motions for declaratory judgment and summary judgment, plus a request to stay proceedings, after supplemental briefing on jurisdiction and lien priority. The court concluded it retained jurisdiction to address enforcement issues related to the judgment fund and analyzed the relative priorities under federal tax lien rules requiring choateness, state law for attorney's liens, equitable subrogation claims by sureties, and the government's offset authority.

federal powertaxesprocedure

The case involved Van Well Nursery suing Mony Life Insurance for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 regarding a patented spur-type Red Delicious apple tree variety that the Brulotte family planted on properties subject to mortgages held by Mony Life as an agricultural lender. Van Well alleged that Mony Life's mortgage agreements, which secured loans on land including the trees and related interests, made the lender liable for direct infringement, inducement, or contributory infringement. The court granted summary judgment to Mony Life, finding no evidence that it used, sold, offered to sell, or controlled the trees or their planting, and that standard lending and security agreements do not trigger liability under the patent statute. The core reasoning was that Mony Life exercised no direction over day-to-day operations or crop choices and merely held a security interest until deeds in lieu of foreclosure, with no support in patent law for voiding its lien rights.

business & regulatoryproperty