The case involved a pro se plaintiff's First Amendment challenge to the City of Leavenworth's ordinances on signs and flagpoles, based on his stated desire to protest in the city despite not living there, owning property, or having applied for permits. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because his plans amounted to mere speculative future intentions rather than a concrete, imminent injury-in-fact, with the flag ordinances also inapplicable to him due to his lack of property.
The United States sued Daniel and Maire Black to obtain judgments for unpaid federal income taxes and to foreclose tax liens on four parcels of real property in Chelan County, Washington, that the Blacks had acquired and held through entities including Summer Hill Freedom Trust, B.C. Trust, and Hope Springs Corporation Sole. The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ cross-motions, holding that the trusts were nominees or alter egos of the Blacks, the 1999 transfers to Hope Springs were fraudulent conveyances made without consideration to avoid creditors, and the Blacks retained beneficial ownership of the properties. The court therefore ruled that valid federal tax liens attached to the parcels and could be foreclosed, ordering their sale with proceeds applied to the assessed tax liabilities exceeding $8 million plus interest.
This case involved a lawsuit by environmental groups against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the Lake Roosevelt Drawdown Project, which diverts water from the Columbia River for irrigation. Plaintiffs claimed the agency began implementing the project before completing required environmental reviews and that the eventual Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were untimely and inadequate. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the final EA and FONSI satisfied NEPA because they were completed before the project's irreversible commitment stage and properly evaluated reasonable alternatives along with cumulative impacts, drawing on prior state agency work and stakeholder input. The decision rested on the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard, finding the agency's process and documentation reasonable under the circumstances.
This case involved the Yakama Nation's challenge to Washington State's efforts to impose and enforce its cigarette tax under RCW 82.24 on sales by tribal retailers to non-members on the reservation, following the breakdown of a prior agreement between the parties. The court denied the Yakama Nation's motion for summary judgment and granted the State's motion in part, ruling that the State could lawfully tax on-reservation cigarette sales to non-member Indians based on Supreme Court precedent in Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, but could not tax sales between Yakama members and lacked authority to prohibit the Tribe from issuing its own tax stamp. The court rejected claims that the state tax scheme was unenforceable against the Tribe, that unstamped cigarettes were not contraband, and that enforcement violated ex post facto principles, while finding partial issues remained for further proceedings on member-to-member sales and tribal stamping authority.
In Dexter v. Tran, the plaintiff sued debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act, and Consumer Protection Act over collection efforts on a debt reaffirmed after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, which had led to a 2007 state court judgment in Spokane County Superior Court. The defendant moved to dismiss the federal suit, while the plaintiff sought summary judgment and other relief. The court granted the motion to dismiss and denied summary judgment, holding that the claims were precluded by the prior state proceedings under doctrines including Rooker-Feldman, res judicata, and full faith and credit, as the plaintiff had raised or could have raised the federal and state statutory issues as affirmative defenses or counterclaims in state court. The ruling emphasized that the federal court could not revisit the state court's handling of venue, jurisdiction, and the underlying debt collection.
This case concerned a dispute over coverage under an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy that was solicited to U.S. Bank mortgage customers through direct mail inserts in their statements. Plaintiff Rodrick Matheny, the beneficiary of his late father's policy issued by Unum, sued Unum, administrator DRIASI, and U.S. Bank after the claim was denied, alleging breach of contract, negligence, Consumer Protection Act violations, misrepresentation, and related claims. Following a bench trial, the court held Unum and U.S. Bank jointly and severally liable for breach of contract, CPA violations, and misrepresentation (with U.S. Bank additionally liable for negligence), dismissed all claims against DRIASI, and awarded $260,000 in damages consisting of the $250,000 policy benefit plus the statutory maximum treble damages. The core reasoning was that the solicitation materials were misleading in representing that coverage would be effective upon enrollment without additional premiums or checks, that this conduct violated the CPA, and that Unum and U.S. Bank failed to implement the coverage as represented, while finding no evidence of bad-faith investigation.
