The case involves the City of Moses Lake seeking to recover or obtain contribution for environmental cleanup costs at the Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination Superfund Site from Lockheed Martin Corporation under CERCLA and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). In a prior order, the court had barred recovery of certain past costs due to statutes of limitations and lack of necessity. Lockheed moved for clarification or summary judgment, arguing that Moses Lake's contribution claims for potential future liabilities were not ripe and that no further claims remained. The court denied the motion, holding that Moses Lake's contribution claims under CERCLA and MTCA for future response costs were ripe for adjudication because of the possibility of impending liability from EPA actions, while distinguishing these from already-barred cost recovery claims for past expenses; it also noted potential ongoing cost recovery claims for other costs.
This case is an insurance coverage dispute arising from long-running litigation between Feature Realty and the City of Spokane over delays and denials of permits and approvals for a planned unit development known as Canyon Bluffs. Feature asserted claims including intentional interference with business expectancy against the City, which settled the underlying actions and sought to collect from the City's insurers. USF&G moved for summary judgment arguing its policy provided no coverage for the tortious interference claim. The court denied the motion, finding that factual questions remained about whether the relevant acts fell within the policy period and whether any exclusions applied, and that the settlement did not clearly allocate liability among claims.
The case involved the City of Moses Lake seeking recovery of response costs incurred between 1989 and 1994 from Lockheed Martin Corporation for cleanup at the Moses Lake Wellfield Contamination Superfund Site under CERCLA and Washington's MTCA. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Lockheed, holding the claims time-barred, and Moses Lake moved for reconsideration alleging clear error, including a misstatement that Lockheed was named a PRP in 1992. Upon review, the court denied the motion, acknowledging the factual inaccuracy but concluding it was not material because the statutes of limitations for removal actions or independent remedial actions had begun running by 1994 and expired by 1997 without a tolling agreement, regardless of PRP notice. The reasoning emphasized that the limitations periods depend on when specific events occurred rather than formal notices, and Moses Lake's actions did not qualify for a later trigger under relevant precedents.
The case involved a contract dispute between RAHCO International, a Washington-based manufacturer, and Laird Electric, a Canadian corporation, concerning electrical assembly work on industrial equipment for a Canadian mining project. RAHCO sued Laird in federal court in Washington, asserting jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause in a purchase order document that designated Washington courts and law. The court granted Laird's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), holding that Laird had not accepted or agreed to the purchase order or its forum selection clause, as the document was not executed by anyone with authority and performance aligned instead with Laird's earlier budget proposal. The court further found insufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant consistent with due process.
The case involved the City of Moses Lake seeking cost recovery and contribution from Lockheed Martin under CERCLA and Washington's MTCA for expenses related to TCE contamination in the city's drinking water wells near a former Air Force base, where Lockheed's predecessor had been involved in missile work. The court granted Lockheed's motion for summary judgment on these statutory claims while denying the city's cross-motion for a liability determination. The core reasoning centered on the claims being barred by the applicable statutes of limitations under CERCLA and MTCA, with additional findings that Lockheed did not qualify as an operator or arranger and that certain post-1994 costs were not recoverable as necessary response costs.
The case involved the estate and family of Christopher L. Rentz, a pre-trial detainee murdered by fellow inmates in the Spokane County Jail, who brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by county officials, along with related state-law wrongful death, survival, and emotional distress claims. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, primarily arguing that the absence of financial dependency on the decedent barred recovery on the wrongful death causes of action. The court granted the motion in part, holding that Washington’s wrongful death statutes, borrowed for the federal claims, require proof of financial dependency for parents and siblings to recover, while also addressing related motions to amend the complaint and continue trial. The opinion further clarified that the decedent’s status as a pre-trial detainee precluded an Eighth Amendment claim, directing analysis instead to the Fourteenth Amendment.