John C. Coughenour

The case concerns Educational Credit Management Corporation's appeal of a bankruptcy court order that discharged most of Michael Rhodes's student loan debt under the undue hardship exception in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The district court reversed, holding that Rhodes failed to satisfy any prong of the Brunner test adopted by the Ninth Circuit. Rhodes, a 52-year-old with multiple degrees and no diagnosed medical impairments preventing work, could maintain a minimal standard of living by participating in an Income-Based Repayment Plan requiring payments of only $10 per month. Additional circumstances did not show his financial difficulties were likely to persist, as he had voluntarily left higher-paying positions for lower-stress jobs, and he had not demonstrated good-faith repayment efforts given his refusal to pursue available repayment options and his choice not to maximize income.

procedure

This case stems from a 1990 maritime personal injury lawsuit in the Western District of Washington against a fishing vessel, its corporate owners, and their president, James Gowdy, which was stayed when one corporate defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Florida. The Florida bankruptcy court issued orders restricting the vessel's movements and requiring security deposits, which Gowdy allegedly violated, leading that court to hold him in contempt and prompting this Court to issue an arrest warrant and an order to show cause regarding civil contempt. The Court determined it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with an evidentiary hearing on the contempt allegations. The core reasoning is that federal district courts may punish only contempt of their own authority under 18 U.S.C. § 401, the relevant orders originated from the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida (a unit of that district's court), and this Court had released the vessel from its custody without reasserting jurisdiction over it.

procedurefederal power

In Oldja v. Warm Beach Christian Camps & Conference Center, plaintiff Ted Oldja sued the camp operator after suffering a hand injury on its zip line when he wrapped his fingers in the primary load-bearing rope, bringing claims for negligence (including breach of the duty of ordinary care and the duty to disclose), product liability, negligence per se under Washington Administrative Code provisions, and common carrier liability. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing the product liability claim (which the plaintiff did not oppose), the duty-to-disclose claim, the WAC-based claims, and the common carrier claim, while allowing the ordinary-care negligence claim to proceed. The decision applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to find no genuine issues of material fact on the dismissed claims, noting that Washington's narrow common-carrier statute does not encompass zip lines and that the Restatement section on disclosure did not create liability under the facts presented.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose after three players on a softball team were disqualified from the 2008 Gay Softball World Series under NAGAAA's Rule 7.05, which limited rosters to a maximum of two heterosexual players, leading to forfeiture of their second-place finish and recommended suspensions. The plaintiffs sued, claiming NAGAAA was a public accommodation under Washington's Law Against Discrimination and had unlawfully discriminated based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that NAGAAA qualifies as a public accommodation but that the First Amendment protects its right to exclude players whose participation would impair its expressive activity of promoting gay amateur athletics. Injunctive relief was denied because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a real and immediate threat of repeated harm, as their injuries resulted from the manner in which the hearing process was applied rather than from the written policy itself.

civil rightsfree speech

This case involves an Indonesian investors' association alleging that various defendants operated a Ponzi scheme, defrauding thousands of investors of hundreds of millions of dollars through false representations about investment returns and qualifications at meetings in Indonesia and elsewhere, while misusing funds for personal businesses and assets. Plaintiffs brought claims including under RICO against categories of defendants based in Asia, Utah, and Washington state, including a bank that provided financial support. The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by two individual defendants but denied the motions of the remaining defendants after reviewing standing under Sprint Communications, subject-matter jurisdiction, and the sufficiency of the allegations.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a bank suing borrowers for allegedly submitting a false loan application that inflated their income to obtain a $1,350,000 loan secured by real property, then defaulting on payments by stopping monthly installments as required by the promissory note and deed of trust. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on claims including fraud in the inducement, negligence, breach of contract, and judicial foreclosure. The court granted the motion, awarding damages for the loan principal, interest, late charges, and fees, and ordering foreclosure on the property at 1275 Chuckanut Drive, Bellingham, Washington, because the defendants provided no evidence or legal authority to contest the facts or raise a genuine issue for trial, despite their pro se arguments about moral obligations, economic conditions, and document authenticity.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Plaintiff Tara Andrews sued Equifax Information Services under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that the company mixed up her credit information with another individual named Tara Andrews, failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, and did not properly reinvestigate her disputes after she reported inaccuracies. Equifax moved for partial summary judgment on claims arising before May 23, 2006, arguing that they were barred by the FCRA's two-year statute of limitations because the plaintiff had discovered the basis for her claims through prior disputes in 2004-2005 and credit denials in early 2006. The court denied the motion, holding that Equifax had not met its burden to show the plaintiff knew of an actual FCRA violation before the cutoff date, as awareness of credit file inaccuracies or third-party credit denials alone does not trigger the limitations period under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Washington resident who sued Michigan-based DTE Energy after a delinquent utility account appeared on her credit report, allegedly lowering her credit score and preventing her from qualifying for a mortgage; she brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state law, asserting that DTE failed to correct the inaccurate information. DTE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to Michigan. The court denied the motion, finding specific personal jurisdiction because DTE had intentionally reported the account to credit bureaus, expressly aimed its conduct at a known Washington resident by responding to her dispute from that state, and caused foreseeable harm there, with the claim arising from those contacts and jurisdiction being reasonable. The court also held that venue was proper in the Western District of Washington as a substantial part of the events, including the injury, occurred there.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by conservation groups to the federal agencies' 2007 Final Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement amending the Northwest Forest Plan, which manages logging, fire treatment, and species protections across millions of acres of old-growth forest in Washington, Oregon, and California. The court granted the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in part, ruling that the agencies' analysis failed to comply with NEPA. The core reasoning was that the supplement inadequately addressed scientific uncertainties in fire risk assessments, relied on overgeneralized wildland-urban interface data, and did not sufficiently explain changes in projected fuel treatment capacity or the grouping of dissimilar forest types. The decision follows decades of litigation enforcing environmental standards for the Plan's matrix, reserve, and adaptive management areas.

environment

The case involves an insurance dispute in which plaintiff Jody Scanlon sought accidental death benefits under a $500,000 policy after her husband died from a subdural hematoma caused by a fall at an assisted-living facility. Defendant LINA denied the claim, concluding that the fall resulted from a heart attack rather than an accident as defined in the policy, which excludes losses caused by sickness or disease. The court granted the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion on her contract and bad-faith breach claims, finding that the medical evidence and autopsy established an accidental cause of death under the policy language, while granting the defendant's motion on the Washington Consumer Protection Act claim. The court also awarded the plaintiff attorney fees under Washington law for prevailing on the insurance contract claim.

business & regulatory

This case involves securities fraud claims brought by shareholders against Washington Mutual (WaMu) and its senior executives for allegedly false and misleading public statements during 2003-2004 about the company's successful integration of technology systems from recent acquisitions and its ability to manage interest rate risks through hedging and a natural hedge between mortgage servicing rights and loan pipelines. The complaint asserted violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The court reasoned that while the statements were materially false and misleading as previously determined, the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter with respect to the individual defendants due to insufficient particularized allegations linking them to knowledge of the integration failures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Oregon residents who purchased a junk removal franchise in southern Oregon from a Delaware company headquartered in Canada under a 2006 agreement that selected Washington law and courts. After the franchisees encountered local regulatory barriers preventing operations and ended their business, the parties negotiated a settlement terminating the franchise, providing refunds, and including a release of claims. The franchisees later sued for breach of contract, violations of Washington's Franchise Investment Protection Act (FIPA), and other claims, but the defendant raised the settlement and FIPA's inapplicability as defenses. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the case because the voluntary settlement agreement barred the claims and FIPA did not apply given the lack of any connection to Washington despite the contractual choice of law.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a child custody dispute in which the mother alleged abuse by the father, prompting a CPS social worker and police officers to investigate at the father's home, interview the child, discover a firearm, and arrest the father (a convicted felon) for unlawful possession. The plaintiffs sued King County defendants alleging violations including unlawful entry, arrest, and search under the Fourth Amendment, as well as removal without due process and negligent investigation. The court denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims due to disputed facts regarding consent to enter the home and the scope of the search, but granted summary judgment on the due process and negligent investigation claims because the arrest was supported by probable cause based on the child's statements and was not the result of incomplete or biased information. The ruling focused on qualified immunity and the standards for liability in investigations tied to custody matters.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case was a class action brought by former short-term residents of nursing homes operated by the defendants, alleging violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act based on purported misrepresentations in advertising and other statements about the quality and characteristics of the facilities' services. The complaint explicitly disclaimed any claims for personal injury or wrongful death. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment against the remaining named plaintiffs, finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs had relied on any deceptive representations or suffered injury caused by them, and denied the plaintiffs' request for additional discovery time under Rule 56(f). With no named plaintiffs left, the court dismissed the complaint in full.

business & regulatory

This case is a civil forfeiture action in which the United States seized bank funds from tobacco wholesalers RK Co. and Global Trading Corporation, alleging the money constituted proceeds of trafficking in contraband cigarettes sold to an Indian smoke shop on the Swinomish Reservation in violation of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act and related money laundering statutes. The claimants moved for summary judgment, contending the cigarettes were not contraband under federal law because state tax stamping requirements did not apply to reservation sales and because title passed to the buyer outside Washington. The court set forth the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and examined the CCTA's definition of contraband cigarettes, Washington cigarette tax statutes, and rules on when title passes and pre-notification obligations arise for out-of-state shipments. It analyzed whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the legality of the transactions before ruling on the motions.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Brown v. Vail, a death-row prisoner challenged Washington's lethal injection protocol under Article I, Section 14 of the Washington Constitution, the Eighth Amendment, due process, and related state laws governing the promulgation and administration of the drugs. After removal and remand proceedings, the federal district court examined abstention sua sponte. The court stayed the federal action and remanded to state court under the Pullman doctrine, reasoning that the case presented novel and substantial questions of state law already being litigated in a parallel state proceeding (Stenson v. Vail) that could resolve the claims and avoid unnecessary federal constitutional rulings. The court retained jurisdiction over the federal claims pending the state outcome.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case arose from a class action settlement in a lawsuit brought by homeowners against a manufacturer over allegedly defective decking products that caused mold and other issues. The court considered plaintiffs' unopposed application for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards to the named plaintiffs after the underlying settlement had been approved. Applying Washington law, the court used the lodestar method rather than a percentage-of-fund approach because the settlement relief was paid on a claims-made basis without a cap, making the total value hard to monetize and because fees would not reduce class recovery. The court reviewed detailed time records, found the hours and rates reasonable given the work performed including investigation, discovery, expert consultations, and negotiations, and approved $1,673,527.64 in fees, $76,472.36 in costs, and $7,500 service awards to each named plaintiff household.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Veritas Operating Corp. and Microsoft Corp. concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,469,573, which relates to software methods for system deployment, backup, and recovery. Veritas alleged direct and indirect infringement by Microsoft's products and documentation, while Microsoft moved for summary judgment of non-infringement. After de novo review of the Special Master's detailed Report and Recommendation analyzing the accused products, uses, manuals, witness testimony, and documents, the court approved and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment, concluding there was no direct infringement, no inducing or contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and no basis for liability regarding software components or willfulness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a disabled plaintiff who brought her pug, Dilo, described as a service animal in training, into a Costco warehouse on two occasions in 2004, resulting in employee inquiries about the dog's training, tasks performed, and ownership. Plaintiff sued under the ADA, state law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress, claiming the questioning constituted harassment and improper exclusion. The court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment, holding that the inquiries were reasonable to determine whether the dog qualified as a service animal under federal regulations and no exclusion from the premises occurred. The CPA claim failed for lack of injury to business or property, and the NIED claim lacked any showing of a duty owed by the defendant.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves elderly passengers who sustained injuries, including head trauma, when a chain-reaction fall occurred on a terminal escalator during disembarkation from a Holland America cruise ship in Venice, Italy. The plaintiffs sued the cruise line in admiralty, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe egress assistance, instructions, or warnings amid crowded and disorganized conditions with many mobility-impaired passengers. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty once passengers left the gangway onto port-controlled property and that any risks from ordinary escalators required no warning. The court denied the motion, holding that a carrier's duty of reasonable care extends to the full disembarkation process under the totality of circumstances and that material factual disputes existed on the scope of duty, breach, and notice of non-obvious risks.

torts & liabilityprocedure