District Court, W.D. Washington — appointed by Ronald Reagan
M.R. v. Dreyfus
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2011-02-09 · cited 2×
This case involved disabled and elderly Medicaid beneficiaries in Washington challenging the state's 2011 across-the-board reduction in in-home personal care service hours, implemented to address a budget crisis, and seeking a preliminary injunction to block the cuts. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. The core reasoning was that the state's CARE assessment system allocates service hours based on relative needs and budget limits rather than any minimum required to avoid institutionalization, and that the reductions did not violate the Medicaid Act or the ADA. The court also determined that the balance of equities and public interest favored the state, which faced significant additional costs if the injunction were granted.
healthcarecivil rights
Experience Hendrix, L.L.C v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd.
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2011-02-08 · cited 5×
This case concerns ongoing litigation over commercial uses of Jimi Hendrix's name, image, and likeness, with plaintiffs Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix, LLC asserting Lanham Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and common-law claims against defendants who distribute posters, apparel, and novelty items bearing Hendrix-related marks. Plaintiffs own copyrights in Hendrix songs and registered trademarks incorporating his name and image, but a prior ruling established that Hendrix's right of publicity did not survive his death under New York law and thus was not assigned to them. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on certain claims, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on defendants' state-law counterclaims. The court evaluated evidence of alleged false association from defendants' business names, domain names, logos, song titles, and lyrics, as well as plaintiffs' communications with defendants' customers, applying standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and addressing admissibility of declarations and hearsay objections.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Solis v. CONSOLIDATED GUN RANGES
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2011-01-18
This case involves a lawsuit by the Department of Labor against Consolidated Gun Ranges and its co-owner, alleging retaliation against a former general manager who was fired after raising concerns about lead contamination and employee health at the facility. The employee had filed a timely whistleblower complaint under several federal environmental statutes, but not explicitly under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which protects workers complaining about workplace safety and health issues. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the section 11(c) claim was time-barred because no complaint was filed within the required thirty days. The court denied the motion, holding that the employee's complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a section 11(c) claim and that a DOL regulation allows such complaints to be deemed to include section 11(c) claims, with the agency entitled to Chevron deference in its interpretation of the statute.
labor & employmentenvironmentgunsbusiness & regulatory
Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A., LLC
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2010-07-23 · cited 9×
This case involves claims by Great Neck Saw Manufacturers against Star Asia for infringement of a utility patent and multiple design patents on folding knives, as well as related trade dress, false designation of origin, and unfair competition claims under federal and state law. The court addressed Star Asia's motions for partial summary judgment on these claims, applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On the utility patent, the court analyzed whether specific claim limitations using means-plus-function language were met by the accused product. Regarding trade dress, the court concluded that the claimed features were functional, barring protection, and that Great Neck's supplemental trademark registrations provided no presumption of validity or non-functionality to overcome this. The court also noted that a finding of functionality defeats the related Lanham Act and state-law claims.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Safeworks, LLC v. Teupen America, LLC
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2010-06-01 · cited 27×
This case involved a trademark dispute in which SafeWorks, LLC, the owner of multiple registered SPIDER marks for lifting, hoisting, and access equipment used since the 1950s, sued Teupen America, LLC, Extreme Access Solutions, Inc., and related entities for using the term "spiderlift" and the domain spiderlifts.com to market and rent track-mounted aerial lifts. After a bench trial, the court concluded that the defendants' use constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, that "spiderlift" was not generic in this context, and that the infringement was willful. The court awarded SafeWorks the defendants' net profits of $56,882 for the period of infringement and found the case exceptional, entitling SafeWorks to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The ruling rested on the validity and constructive notice of the long-registered marks, the defendants' continued use after warnings, and evidence that their conduct caused injury to SafeWorks' control over its brand.
business & regulatory
Vernon v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Washington · 2009-07-16 · cited 16×
This case is a multi-state consumer class action brought by Qwest internet service customers against five Qwest corporate entities, alleging that the company improperly imposed $200 early termination fees (ETFs) on customers who canceled service before the end of any term commitment. The plaintiffs asserted claims for relief from unlawful penalties, unjust enrichment, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and other state consumer protection laws, and declaratory judgment, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the term commitments and ETFs and to recover damages. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), applying the plausibility standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and considered issues including the filed tariff doctrine for pre-2006 services, the need to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) for claims sounding in fraud, and whether the subscriber agreements created enforceable term commitments. The court dismissed certain claims, such as plaintiff Vernon's unjust enrichment count, while evaluating others under Washington and Minnesota law without reaching choice-of-law questions.
business & regulatoryprocedure