Robert H. Whaley

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.

free speechcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

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.

taxesproperty

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.

environmentfederal power

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.

taxesfederal powercivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerns a plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint in an insurance coverage dispute to add a claim under Washington's Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), a statute creating a cause of action for unreasonable denial of claims that took effect in December 2007. The court denied the motion to amend. The decision rested on the conclusion that the IFCA applies only prospectively, as the precipitating events—the submission and denial of insurance claims for hotel water damage, as well as the filing of the lawsuit—occurred before the statute's effective date, rendering any amendment futile under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Grant County Black Sands Irrigation District and a landowner challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's handling of payments and entitlements under federal reclamation laws for the Columbia Basin Project, seeking credits for construction and operations charges, refunds, water rights certificates, and management rights. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction because they did not demonstrate an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States, particularly lacking a cognizable claim under the Administrative Procedure Act due to the absence of reviewable final agency action, and other claims did not independently waive immunity.

environmentfederal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involved federal grand jury subpoenas served on the State of Oregon's Department of Human Services Medical Marijuana Program and the THCF Medical Clinic seeking extensive medical records and applications for 17 individuals. The State and Clinic moved to quash the subpoenas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), citing privacy interests, state sovereignty over its medical program, and confidentiality of patient records. The court granted both motions to quash, holding that compliance would be unreasonable because the subpoenas implicated significant state interests in program integrity and patient confidentiality without a sufficient showing of relevance or necessity by the government. The court emphasized the broad investigative role of grand juries but noted limits under Rule 17(c)(2) when compliance would cause serious consequences beyond ordinary burdens, particularly amid conflicts between state medical marijuana authorization and federal law.

criminal lawfederal powerhealthcare

The case involved parents and Latino/Latina students suing Brewster School District for alleged ongoing racial and national origin discrimination, including a November 2003 incident where students were required to attend a closed-door meeting without parental notice, accused of gang activity, demeaned based on test scores and family background, and forced to sign disciplinary contracts. After an EEOC complaint led to a settlement with the Office for Civil Rights, the plaintiffs filed this federal lawsuit, which settled via Rule 68 offers of judgment providing monetary damages and injunctive relief, leaving attorneys' fees and costs to be determined by the court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation without objection and granted in part the motion for fees, awarding plaintiffs a total of $208,018.85 after applying the lodestar method with reductions for excessive or unrelated time. The core reasoning focused on the reasonableness of hours and rates based on declarations, case complexity, and Ninth Circuit precedent subsuming certain factors into the lodestar calculation.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns challenges by environmental groups to actions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service under the Endangered Species Act involving biological opinions and snowmobiling activities in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that could affect the endangered woodland caribou. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on claims that the opinions and incidental take statements were arbitrary and that consultation was required or inadequate, while defendants cross-moved on the same issues. The court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendants' cross-motion, finding certain claims moot due to a superseding biological opinion, but granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. The injunction prohibits authorizing snowmobiling or trail grooming in the caribou recovery area until consultation is completed. The core reasoning was that the ESA requires agencies to consult to avoid jeopardizing listed species and to avoid irreversible commitments during the consultation process.

environment

The case involved Defendant Roger Fiander, a Yakama Tribe member, facing multiple federal charges including RICO conspiracy and violations of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) for allegedly trafficking large quantities of unstamped cigarettes between Idaho and Washington without state preapproval, along with related money laundering and racketeering counts. Fiander moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming no predicate violation of Washington cigarette tax laws and that the CCTA improperly restricted his treaty right to travel under the Yakama Treaty of 1855. The court denied the motion, holding that while mere transport of cigarettes might not violate the CCTA due to treaty protections, the transport of proceeds from such trafficking and deliveries without required state preapproval did constitute violations, so the charges could proceed. The reasoning relied on Washington regulations mandating advance notice to the Department of Revenue for untaxed cigarettes sold to tribal members and Ninth Circuit precedents interpreting the CCTA to require such compliance even for tribal sellers.

criminal lawfederal powertaxes

The case involved plaintiffs seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt agricultural burning in Washington state, alleging that the Department of Ecology's failure to restrict such burning violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by harming individuals with respiratory conditions. The court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested relief. The core reasoning was that the Clean Air Act establishes a comprehensive federal scheme for regulating air pollution that balances federal and state authority as well as public health against industrial needs, and plaintiffs' claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act appeared foreclosed by that scheme. The court further noted that the challenged conduct by a state agency did not align with the type of discrimination Congress intended those disability statutes to address. Procedural requirements under the Clean Air Act, including notice provisions for citizen suits, reinforced the lack of authority to intervene via other statutes.

environmentcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns claims by former Washington state prisoners alleging they were subjected to radiation experiments without informed consent, asserting a cause of action for crimes against humanity against various defendants including state officials and private entities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that while international law prohibits non-consensual medical experimentation and is part of federal law, it does not itself create a private right of action enforceable in U.S. courts. The court further found that no treaty to which the U.S. is a party, nor any other source of federal law, provides such a right of action for the alleged violations, and that defining specific liability standards would exceed the court's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case involves a shareholder's securities fraud claim against Itron, Inc. and its CEO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the company made materially misleading public statements about the technological feasibility of its fixed-network automatic meter reading systems during a specified class period. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for scienter imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff's detailed factual allegations—including internal company knowledge of the ERT modules' technical limitations since 1993, contradictory marketing materials, and delays reported in SEC filings—were sufficient to raise a strong inference of at least reckless conduct. The reasoning centered on the PSLRA's requirement that plaintiffs plead facts creating a strong inference of scienter, which can be satisfied through circumstantial evidence of recklessness even without direct proof of motive.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by ranch owners Gary and Nancy Graham against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that flooding on their property in 1995-1997 was caused by negligent construction of a fish screen by the Bureau of Reclamation and negligent maintenance by the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Wapato Irrigation Project. The government moved for summary judgment, claiming sovereign immunity under the Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702c, which bars liability for flood damages. After a trial on the immunity issue, the court denied the request for immunity, finding that the irrigation project and fish screen were not part of any federal flood control activities—the project served only irrigation purposes, and the screen was installed by the Bonneville Power Administration for fish conservation. The court reasoned that the statutory immunity applies only in connection with flood control projects, so it did not shield the government here, and set the matter for trial on the merits.

federal powertorts & liabilityenvironment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by a Washington state prisoner convicted of murder, challenging the fairness of his trial based on the admission of certain witness testimony. The court granted the petition and ordered the state to either provide a new trial or release the petitioner, holding that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment was violated by the admission of taped statements and deposition testimony from three individuals, including two codefendants with incentives to shift blame. The court explained that the Confrontation Clause protects fundamental trial rights such as oath-taking, face-to-face confrontation, cross-examination, and jury observation of demeanor, all of which were denied here. It further reasoned that these constitutional errors had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict, distinguishing its conclusion from prior state court rulings on the same issues.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Farrakhan v. Locke, minority felons challenged Washington's constitutional and statutory scheme disenfranchising persons convicted of infamous crimes, claiming it caused racially discriminatory vote denial and dilution under the Voting Rights Act as well as violations of multiple constitutional amendments. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the vote dilution claims under the VRA and all constitutional claims while allowing the vote denial claims under the VRA to proceed. The court reasoned that the vote denial allegations could survive under the totality-of-circumstances standard of the VRA due to disparities in prosecution and sentencing, but the other claims failed for lack of standing or legal sufficiency. The plaintiffs' motion to amend was denied except to add one new plaintiff for appeal purposes.

electionscivil rightscriminal law

The case involved a motion by an unemancipated minor to quash a grand jury subpoena requiring his testimony against his father, who faced criminal charges, asserting a parent-child privilege based on privacy, emotional harm, and religious beliefs. The court denied the motion, holding that no such privilege exists under federal law. It reasoned that Fed. R. Evid. 501 requires privileges to be grounded in the Constitution, federal statutes, or common law interpreted in light of reason and experience, and that established privacy rights in family matters do not extend to a testimonial privilege preventing compelled testimony in criminal investigations. The court reviewed precedents from other circuits rejecting constitutional bases for the privilege and noted that while some states recognize versions of it, federal courts have not adopted one here.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involves a former K-Mart employee who alleged age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Fair Labor Standards Act violations, along with state-law claims including negligence, outrage, negligent retention, Consumer Protection Act violations, and wage claims; the case had been removed from state court to federal court based on the federal claims. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the state-law claims. It held that supplemental jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all claims arose from a common nucleus of operative facts, and none of the statutory exceptions in § 1367(c) for declining jurisdiction applied, including no novel state-law issues or predominance of state claims.

procedurelabor & employmentcivil rights