The case involved Robert Taylor, a Canadian citizen and U.S. military veteran, who sought de novo review of the denial of his naturalization application after convictions for sexual offenses against minors, including a 1995 Canadian sexual assault conviction that led to his prior deportation. Taylor argued that military service exempted him from proving good moral character, that his Canadian conviction was not an aggravated felony, and that a Canadian pardon removed any bar to naturalization. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that Taylor failed to establish good moral character because the 1995 conviction qualified as sexual abuse of a minor under the modified categorical approach and thus as an aggravated felony under the INA. The court further reasoned that the foreign pardon was conditional and revocable rather than full and unconditional, and that no equal protection violation arose from refusing to recognize it absent a comparable U.S. expungement for similar conduct.
In this case, Amazon challenged requests by the North Carolina Department of Revenue, through its secretary, for customer names, addresses, and purchase details as part of an audit into Amazon's sales and use tax obligations for transactions with North Carolina residents. The court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment and denied the Department's motions to dismiss, declaring that the information requests violate the First Amendment and the Video Privacy Protection Act when the Department retains access to detailed purchase records like ASIN numbers. The core reasoning was that the requests would enable the Department to identify the specific expressive content of individual customers' purchases, thereby implicating their rights to anonymous speech and association, even though the Department claimed it only needed general information to calculate tax liability and had already received generic product codes.
In this civil suit brought by Jimenez after his murder conviction was reversed, the defendants subpoenaed documents and a deposition from third-party journalist Carolyn Nielsen concerning her communications with Jimenez during and after his trial. Nielsen moved to quash the subpoenas, for a protective order, and for attorney’s fees, invoking journalist’s privilege and undue burden. The court granted the motion in full, applying Ninth Circuit precedent that recognizes a journalist’s privilege and finding it applicable to Nielsen’s student and freelance reporting activities. The court also awarded fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because the defendants had not first pursued alternative discovery methods from the parties.
This case involves a dispute between Ultimate Timing, LLC and its founder Arash Kia on one side and David Simms and SA Innovations on the other over an alleged oral joint venture to develop and commercialize a UHF RFID race timing system, along with related claims for breach of a nondisclosure agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and a counterclaim under Washington's Securities Act. The court denied summary judgment to both parties on the breach of joint venture agreement, breach of nondisclosure agreement, and trade secrets misappropriation claims because of disputed material facts, while ruling as a matter of law that any trade secret protection ended upon publication of the patent applications in July 2009. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the conversion claim as preempted by the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act and dismissing the securities counterclaim on the ground that Simms's investment did not qualify as a security under the Act.
In this case, Cycle Barn, a motorsports dealer, sued Arctic Cat, a manufacturer, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages under a 2009 amendment to Washington’s R.C.W. 46.93.080, which required manufacturers to repurchase inventory upon franchise termination even when the dealer ended the relationship. The parties’ prior franchise agreement had given Arctic Cat the right but not the obligation to repurchase products, and their business dealings continued under similar terms until Cycle Barn terminated in July or August 2009. Arctic Cat moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that applying the amended statute retroactively would unconstitutionally impair its contractual rights. The court granted the motion, holding that the new law substantially impaired the existing contract by converting a bargained-for right into a mandatory obligation without a significant and legitimate public purpose, and it denied Cycle Barn’s separate motion to submit additional evidence. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing leave to amend.
In Warden v. Nickels, plaintiff Robert Warden challenged the constitutionality of a Seattle Parks Department rule, adopted after a mayoral executive order, that prohibited carrying or displaying firearms at certain park facilities where children and youth are likely present, with violations resulting only in ejectment. The plaintiff, who holds a concealed pistol license, alleged violations of the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington State Constitution after being asked to leave a community center while carrying a concealed weapon. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Second Amendment claim failed because the amendment did not apply to municipalities under then-current Ninth Circuit precedent, the Equal Protection claim failed under rational basis review because the rule was a reasonable measure to protect public safety, and the state constitutional claim lacked sufficient support; the court also found the mayor entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
