Robert Jensen Bryan

The case involved homeowners who refinanced their property with Washington Mutual Bank in 2007 and later faced foreclosure proceedings after the bank was acquired by JPMorgan Chase in 2008. The plaintiffs sued Chase and Northwest Trustee Services, asserting claims including wrongful foreclosure, fraud, conspiracy, and violations of TILA and RESPA, primarily arguing that Chase lacked authority to foreclose due to the absence of a recorded assignment from WaMu, improper timing of the successor trustee appointment, and nondisclosure of loan terms. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), reasoning that the plaintiffs' failure to respond constituted an admission that the motions had merit and that their theories were legally invalid under Washington law with insufficient factual support to state plausible claims.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involves the Gifford Pinchot Task Force challenging the U.S. Forest Service's approval of the Wildcat Thin Project, a forest-thinning initiative in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, dismissing the case with prejudice. It reasoned that the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) sufficiently analyzed the project's impacts on late-successional reserves, soils, aquatic resources, and other areas, complied with the Northwest Forest Plan and Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and justified a site-specific amendment to allow certain harvesting equipment on steeper slopes, without requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Northwest Home Designing Inc. sued Sound Built Homes for copyright infringement involving unauthorized use of home designs, leading Sound Built to bring third-party claims against Gerry Slick and his design group for indemnification; Slick then counterclaimed against NHD for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices under Washington law, alleging NHD exceeded licensed use of a design and failed to pay royalties. NHD moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment and unfair business practices counterclaims, arguing they were preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the state-law claims were not preempted because they included extra elements, such as implied contractual obligations, that made them qualitatively different from pure copyright claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Patricia Allfrey, a Lead Inventory Management Specialist at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, who alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII after a male colleague, Robert McDonald, was temporarily detailed and later promoted to a supervisory position she sought, following her filing of informal EEO complaints; she also claimed harassment through reassignment of duties and loss of consortium. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire case. It reasoned that the defendants had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the temporary detail due to a promotion freeze during a pay system transition, with no evidence that gender bias motivated the decision or that the stated reasons were pretextual, the duty reassignment resulted from her extended absence rather than retaliation, no hostile work environment claim was pled in the complaint, and loss of consortium is not cognizable under Title VII.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, Washington state prison inmate Dennis Florer sued DOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA, alleging that the kosher and mainline diets provided from 2004 to 2008 violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights as well as RLUIPA by being religiously and nutritionally inadequate and retaliatory. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing failure to state a claim, bar on damages under RLUIPA, and qualified immunity. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion after finding the diets met kosher standards under Orthodox Jewish law, were nutritionally sufficient, and were not retaliatory, with no constitutional violations shown. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, granted summary judgment to the defendants, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

In Woodsum v. Astrue, plaintiff Heidi Woodsum sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of her applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability from July 2002 due to major depressive disorder and PTSD. The ALJ had found her not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation process after determining she could perform other work despite her impairments. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, concluding that the ALJ had erred in several respects, including the evaluation of medical evidence, the plaintiff's credibility, lay witness testimony, and residual functional capacity. The court therefore reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings under the applicable standards for substantial evidence and legal error.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

In Brawley v. Washington, a pregnant inmate at the Washington Corrections Center for Women sued correctional officers after being placed in full restraints, including a waist chain and handcuffs, while being transported to a hospital during what she reported as active labor in April 2007. The plaintiff alleged violations of her Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the defendants' request for qualified immunity on the constitutional claim, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the officers acted with deliberate indifference by restraining her despite the absence of an emergency. The court reasoned that the right to be free from shackling during labor and delivery was clearly established under precedents like Hope v. Pelzer and Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, which addressed similar restraints creating risks of harm and humiliation. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on other claims, such as declaratory relief and damages against the state, and denied the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves real estate developers who own property along North Orchard Street in Ruston, Washington, and sought land use permits and utility connections from the town, which has a small population and contracts with consultants for planning services. The plaintiffs challenged the town's fee structures, permit processes, and related actions under federal and state law. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the defendants' motions as to all federal claims, dismissed those claims, and denied the plaintiffs' corresponding motion. The court found no basis to sustain the federal claims and directed further briefing on whether the remaining state claims should be remanded to state court. The topics addressed include municipal land-use regulation, developer fees, and procedural handling of summary judgment motions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, property owners sued the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after it enacted a series of emergency moratoria from 2001 to 2004 that blocked applications for new shoreline docks, piers, and armoring while the city updated its Shoreline Master Program to protect habitat. The plaintiffs claimed the rolling moratoria violated their substantive due process rights by preventing them from vesting development rights. The district court granted the city's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the claims, holding that the ordinances were rationally related to legitimate governmental interests such as habitat protection and that invalidity under state law did not automatically establish a federal constitutional violation. The court found no evidence that the city acted arbitrarily or for improper purposes beyond the stated regulatory goals.

environmentpropertycivil rightsprocedure

In this case, elementary school teacher Linda Cawley-Herrmann sued Meredith Corp., operator of FOX-12 News, for invasion of privacy under Washington law after the station broadcast her name and photograph in connection with false and unsubstantiated allegations that she had assaulted a student. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim because the publicized matter concerned a school incident of legitimate public concern and did not fall within the narrow privacy protections recognized in Washington precedents such as Bellevue John Does. The court declined to extend those holdings beyond the context of public records disclosure acts and denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion for reconsideration and request to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case involves the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats Superfund Site in Tacoma, Washington, where the United States sued the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) under CERCLA to recover unreimbursed response costs for hazardous substance cleanup and to obtain a declaratory judgment on future liability. WSDOT filed a counterclaim seeking contribution from the United States under CERCLA § 113, based on dredging and fill activities by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that allegedly contributed to the contamination. The court granted in part and denied in part the United States' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the portion of the counterclaim seeking contribution for costs imposed by a separate state court judgment under the Washington Model Toxics Control Act, while allowing the portion seeking contribution for the federal response costs to proceed. The core reasoning was that CERCLA contribution claims do not extend to state court judgments in this context, but WSDOT had sufficiently alleged facts regarding the Corps' actions to support the remaining claim at the pleading stage.

environmentfederal power

The case arose from 2007 anti-war protests in Olympia, Washington, where demonstrators blocked streets to prevent military equipment convoys from leaving the port, leading to police use of pepper spray, batons, and other measures against protesters including plaintiffs Hamilton and Mosqueda. The plaintiffs sued the City of Olympia and individual officers, claiming violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights, substantive due process, and state-law claims including battery and negligence. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the substantive due process claims and certain claims against a John Doe officer, but denied summary judgment on the First and Fourth Amendment claims against the officers and the City, as well as Hamilton's battery and negligence claims. The court reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the force used, whether officers' assurances to protesters created justifiable reliance supporting negligence, and whether the City's policies or customs were involved. Claims were evaluated under standards requiring plaintiffs to show disputes of fact that could support liability at trial.

civil rightsfree speechtorts & liability

The case involved a challenge by the Washington Health Care Association to a state statute, RCW 18.20.440, that required licensed boarding homes with existing Medicaid provider agreements to continue serving residents receiving Medicaid benefits even after the homes withdrew from the Medicaid program, and to serve certain private-pay residents who became Medicaid-eligible within 180 days of withdrawal. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the statute violated the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution by substantially impairing those provider agreements. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendants' motion, holding that the challenged provisions of the statute were not necessary and reasonable because they forced continued performance under the contracts without adequate justification or legislative balancing of the impairment against the state's interests in protecting vulnerable residents. The decision rested on the finding that the law compelled boarding homes to provide services involuntarily after contract termination, exceeding what the Contract Clause permits.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a business dispute between Suarez Corporation Industries (SCI), a seller of portable electric heaters under the EDENPURE and SUN-TWIN marks, and its former distributor Earthwise Technologies, Earthwise Innovations, and Bruce Searle, who created competing websites and a new ComfortZone heater after terminating the distributorship. SCI and MHE sued for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and cyberpiracy under federal and state law, while Earthwise counterclaimed for trade secret misappropriation and breach of agreement. On motions for summary judgment, the court granted SCI's motions in part, finding trademark infringement and unfair competition liability as to Earthwise Innovations but denying it as to Earthwise Technologies and Searle due to factual disputes on post-injunction activities and bad faith; it also granted summary judgment dismissing the trade secret claim for lack of a protectable secret and the breach claim based on non-opposition. The court denied Earthwise's cross-motion and requests for injunctive relief or domain transfers as premature.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a locomotive engineer who sued his employer, Union Pacific Railroad, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act due to discrimination based on his sleep apnea and violations of the Federal Employers' Liability Act for failing to provide a safe workplace that allegedly caused his sleep disorder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed both claims. The FELA claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as the plaintiff had been aware of his work-related sleep issues since a 1994 incident but did not file suit until 2007. The ADA claim failed because the plaintiff could not show he qualified as disabled under the statute or that the employer had violated its requirements.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs Dennis and Judith White sued Homefield Financial and Countrywide Home Loans over alleged violations during the 2005 refinancing of their home loan, including inaccurate notices of the right to cancel under TILA and overstated income on loan documents, claiming damages and rescission under TILA as well as violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act. After settling with Homefield, the plaintiffs pursued claims against Countrywide as the loan assignee. The court denied Countrywide's motion to strike a supporting declaration and granted summary judgment in part by dismissing the TILA statutory damages claims, finding assignees are not liable for such damages, and dismissing the CPA claims because Countrywide was not involved in the original deceptive acts by Homefield. The court denied summary judgment on the TILA rescission claim, allowing it to proceed against the assignee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a class action by borrowers against NovaStar Mortgage alleging that the lender failed to properly disclose yield spread premiums paid to brokers on good faith estimates, resulting in higher interest rates and violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act and Consumer Loan Act. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment establishing that NovaStar's conduct was a per se violation as to two named class members, Larry Brown and Ralph Martinelli. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the borrowers received adequate disclosures and whether the class definition covered related claims on HUD-1 statements, while declining to redefine the class based on an untimely request in the reply brief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by plaintiff John against Pierce County sheriff's deputies, alleging that an unlawful traffic stop for expired registration, a vehicle pursuit, a PIT maneuver, being struck on the head with a flashlight, and being forced to walk on an injured knee violated his constitutional rights. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint in full. The core reasoning was that plaintiff's prior convictions for eluding and assault barred certain claims under Heck v. Humphrey, that the force used did not rise to a constitutional violation, and that there was no deliberate indifference to medical needs; additionally, the plaintiff failed to show how further discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact or to submit affidavits contradicting the defendants' evidence despite having had ample time to conduct discovery.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case arose from plaintiff Terence Manning's arrest by Washington State Patrol troopers investigating a misdemeanor road-rage incident involving an alleged gun-brandishing, during which Manning claimed he was subjected to excessive force, battery, and other mistreatment at his home. Manning sued the state, the patrol, and the individual troopers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations as well as state-law claims including battery, false arrest, assault, false imprisonment, and negligence. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the federal claims against the state entities and officers in their official capacities, all the listed state tort claims, and the negligence claims (due to Manning's failure to respond), while denying summary judgment on the § 1983 claims against the troopers in their personal capacities. The rulings rested on Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of response for the dismissed claims, and on the existence of factual disputes precluding judgment for the surviving claims.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to block implementation of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations affecting the state's Air National Guard. The suit claimed the changes violated the Second Amendment by impairing the state's militia, breached 32 U.S.C. § 104 by altering Guard units without gubernatorial consent, and exceeded the Secretary's authority under the BRAC statute. The court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss, ruling the Second Amendment claim presented a nonjusticiable political question, that Congress had barred judicial review of the § 104 claim, and that the Governor lacked a private right of action while the Secretary's actions remained within BRAC's plain terms. The Governor's summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.

federal powercivil rightsgunsprocedure