Archive for Lawsuit

Latest Lawsuit Filed by WEICU Related to the 2020 Election Met with Skepticism from Judge

Even though the calendar has recently turned to 2022, there are still some people who are seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Recently, a Washington state Supreme Court commissioner listened to arguments related to a lawsuit that alleged widespread voter fraud took place during the 2020 election. The lawsuit was brought by the Washington Election Integrity Coalition United (WEICU) and makes claims that thousands of individuals who are not citizens of the United States illegally submitted ballots in 2020.

The group claims that a preliminary investigation took place showing that more than 34,000 people who are not citizens were registered to vote in King County. The lawsuit makes similar claims related to other counties across the state, including the Kemah, Clark, Pierce, and Snohomish. These claims are founded on statements made by an employee of the Department of Licensing.

The judge who listened to the case was skeptical. He noted that there was nothing in the claims that supported the overwhelming numbers. He denied that the statements of a single employee could be labeled as evidence. He questioned the dependability of the single employee, saying that it was not only hearsay but also double hearsay. Color members of the governor, including a spokesperson for Governor Inslee’s Office, stated that there is no competent evidence supporting the allegations of widespread voter fraud made in the lawsuit. He stated that the statements of one employee from a political rally are not enough to support the significant numbers.

This is not the first time that WEICU has filed lawsuits related to allegations of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election. Recently, a judge in Franklin County dismissed one of their lawsuits, stating that the lawsuit had not only missed the deadline to file a lawsuit based on the laws in the state but also was not filed by a licensed attorney.

Even though the results of this lawsuit have not yet been decided, the judge will weigh the arguments from WEICU, listen to arguments from the defendants, and decide whether the case should be referred to the state supreme court, send it back to a different court, or dismiss the lawsuit entirely.

Washington State House of Representatives GOP Members File Lawsuit Against New COVID Vaccine Requirements

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant impact on individuals, families, and small businesses. Now that numerous vaccines have received full FDA approval, many companies are requiring their employees to be vaccinated. Furthermore, the Washington legislature has instituted a policy requiring state representatives to present proof of vaccinations against COVID-19 before they are allowed on the floor of the house.

Recently, several Republican members of the Washington State House of Representatives filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the requirement that members show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 before moving to the floor of the house. The lawsuit asked for an injunction until the full legal challenge could be heard.

In the lawsuit, the members are claiming that the new policy limits access to facilities in the House of Representatives unlawfully. The lawsuit also claims that the new requirement violates the First Amendment rights of the members of the House of Representatives. In addition, the lawsuit targets house restrictions that prevent representatives from accessing their offices without proof of vaccination.

A judge in the Superior Court in the state of Washington disagreed with the position of the plaintiffs. She stated that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold to be granted a preliminary injunction. She claims that the restrictions do not prevent the legislators from doing their jobs, and denied them the preliminary injunction. Of note, this preliminary denial does not mean that the lawsuit is unsuccessful. It simply means that the legislators will not have the requirements halted temporarily until the fall case can be heard.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the case moving forward. There are numerous controversies taking place across the country related to vaccination requirements. For example, the state senate allows legislators and their staffers to be on the floor of the Senate regardless of vaccination status. Members simply need to receive a negative test before they are allowed on the floor of the Senate.

The results of this lawsuit could be seen as a precedent for the rest of the state. Even though it might be a while before the case is heard, everyone in the state of Washington will follow the lawsuit closely.

Lawsuit Filed in Washington State Related to Poor Learning Conditions for Students

Children require adequate buildings in which to learn, and a lawyer in Washington has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a small district in Washington state. The lawsuit claims that the buildings are in such poor condition that the children are unable to learn. In the lawsuit, the lawyer claims that public education is supposed to be an equalizer across the country, giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. The lawsuit goes on to claim that the Wahkiakum School District does not have the funding to maintain its buildings, creating inequality in schools districts across the state.

The school district is small, representing fewer than 500 students, and the lawyer claims that the district is being overlooked. The lawsuit further claims that the state of Washington is violating its own Constitution by not providing students with modern buildings in which to learn.

Approximately 10 years ago, the same lawyer filed and won a lawsuit when the Washington state supreme court agreed with him and the argument that the state was not giving enough funding to provide all students with ample access to basic education. As a result of the case, many school districts had to find new sources of funding instead of relying solely on property taxes.

The lawsuit goes on to argue that many of the smaller districts are being hurt because wealthy districts often vote in favor of raising property taxes to fund their schools. On the other hand, smaller districts may not have the capital to increase their property taxes, causing their buildings to fall into a state of disrepair.

In addition, residents who live in wealthier districts may pay a lower property tax percentage that still results in greater revenue because their properties are worth more. The end result is that wealthier districts have more resources to construct new buildings and provide better equipment to teachers and their students.

The lawsuit is expected to go to the state supreme court and could have a significant impact across the state, particularly in small and rural districts. People across the state of Washington will watch the results of the lawsuit carefully because it could have impacts not only in the Wahkiakum School District but others as well.

Personal Injury Facts vs Myths

Personal injury occurs when someone incurs an injury either because of someone’s negligence or ill-motives. Should this happen to you or someone you care about, know that there is a recourse for you to take so that you can be properly compensated for what happened.


Here, we take a look at some of the more common myths on personal injury cases, and the facts that should bring clear answers and enlightenment to those who may need it.


MYTH 1: Personal injury law only applies to accidents like slip and falls, and car accidents.


FACT: Slip and falls, and accidents, are the most common types of personal injuries, but they are not the only ones. Medical malpractice also falls under personal injury. If a surgeon leaves a gauze inside during surgery, and this results in complications during the patient’s recovery, the patient may file for personal injury.


Psychological and emotional harms are also considered under this category, and so can be used as grounds for seeking relief in court.


MYTH 2: You should wait until you are healed or recovered before filing a personal injury lawsuit.


FACT: The sooner you get it done, the better. Keep in mind that there is a statute of limitations or a deadline for filing a lawsuit.


For personal injuries, specifically, you must file within two years from the occurrence of the injury. If this is not possible, such as the medical malpractice example above, then the statute of limitations begins upon the date of the discovery of the injury.


MYTH 3: It’s expensive to hire a lawyer and file a personal injury lawsuit.


FACT: The prevailing misconception is that hiring a lawyer to pursue a personal injury lawsuit is going to be very expensive. However, the fact is that lawyers handling personal injury cases forego legal fees upfront. Based on the contingency fee setup, their fees will be paid from the awarded settlement.


The lawyers are also in charge of the disbursements, or any and all necessary expenses incurred during the pursuit of the lawsuit. So if fear of cost is what’s stopping you from filing a personal injury lawsuit, don’t worry.


Get the justice and compensation you deserve. Hire a personal injury lawyer at the earliest.

Lawsuit Filed Over Injuries Related to Apple Watch Battery Defects

Apple is synonymous with technology, and a lot of people have purchased the Apple Watch. There are multiple generations that have been released, but all of them could have a serious defect with the battery. Recently, a problem was discovered with the battery that could cause it to swell. If the battery swells inside the device, it can lead to operational failures and serious injuries. For example, broken screens could cause injuries to the forearm, and a recent class-action lawsuit has been filed against the technology giant.

According to claims made by the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Apple has made serious mistakes during its manufacturing processes. The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s manufacturing processes cause the battery to come into direct contact with the screen. Therefore, in situations where the battery might as well, the display screen could pop out. If it cracks, it could lead to serious injuries.

For example, when the display pops out of the battery, there are razor-sharp edges that could lead to significant harm. The watch face could crack or shatter, leading to injuries that are not the fault of the individual using the watch.

There was one specific example cited in the lawsuit. An individual saw the screen detach from the battery more than three years after he originally purchased the device. When the screen popped out, it mangled a vein on the bottom of his forearm. This could lead to serious bleeding, which might lead to major medical complications. The lawsuit also included an image of the severe laceration along with vivid descriptions of what happened.

Unfortunately, it is possible that every generation of Apple watches could be impacted by this battery defect. The lawsuit also alleges that the manufacturing issue causes an unreasonable risk of injury and harm to consumers. The lawsuit also claims that a lot of people have already suffered injuries.

Furthermore, this is not the first time that Apple has had to deal with a lawsuit related to its batteries. In 2019, Apple faced a lawsuit claiming that the tech company had engaged in fraudulent business practices. Even though the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it will be interesting to see where the lawsuit related to the batteries heads this time.

Lawsuit Underway in Opioid Epidemic Trial in Washington

The opioid epidemic has been a significant issue facing the entire country for the past several years. Recently, the opioid epidemic was put on display in Washington, as a major case went to trial against three major opioid distributors. The companies are accused of filing hundreds of thousands of suspect orders for drugs, and the state alleges that many of these orders ended up in the hands of drug dealers, who were then able to distribute them to people on the street. As a result, some people may have gotten their hands on opioid medications without a prescription, leading to opioid hospitalizations and deaths.

The three major drug manufacturers involved in the case include Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen. The allegations are that the companies shipped more than 250,000 orders to the state of Washington over an eight-year period despite having a legal obligation not to fill any orders that would likely end up in the hands of drug dealers.

By law, drug distributors are required to monitor the orders they receive. If they appear suspicious, they are required by law to report them to the drug enforcement agency. Furthermore, distributors are required to investigate any orders that look suspicious, making sure they do not end up on the black market.

To win the case, the state will have to prove that the companies either knew or should have known that many of these orders were suspicious. Then, the state will also have to prove that many of these suspicious orders ended up in the hands of drug dealers. The state is seeking a transformative amount of money that will help the region heal.

Of note, before the case went to trial, the defendants rejected a settlement offer of more than $527 million. If the distributors lose at trial, it would not be surprising if the penalty was even higher than that. If the state receives money from these companies as a result of the lawsuit, the money will go toward funding the state’s opioid response plan. The goal of the plan is to help those who have been impacted by the opioid epidemic while also putting new measures in place that will make it harder to distribute opioids illegally throughout Washington.

Amazon Settles Pesticide Lawsuit for $2.5 Million

Amazon will pay $2.5 million in a settlement agreed upon in November 2021. The Washington State Attorney General’s office alleges that the company allowed vendors to sell industrial-grade pesticides on its platform. The case involves pesticides bought between 2013 and 2020, according to

Pesticides Sold Online

Under Washington state law, these pesticides were highly regulated, and members of the general public cannot purchase them through regular channels. In fact, the state requires sellers to hold the appropriate licenses. Sellers must also record information about buyers at the point of sale. Some of the pesticides also require buyers to hold a license due to the hazardous nature of the pesticides. In those cases, buyers need a pesticide applicator license.

EPA Investigation

The Environmental Protection Agency ordered Amazon to stop sales of the pesticides and won a settlement for $1.2 million in 2018. During the time frame in question, the tech giant sold high-strength pesticides in thousands of sales. Product descriptions for the pesticides did not warn customers that they were meant for industrial and agricultural use.

Therefore, it is possible that people bought them without knowing that they were any different from other products for sale to homeowners and individuals.

Possible Neurological Damage

Some people purchasing the pesticides probably didn’t know about the potential dangers, which include the risk of neurological damage if used improperly. Additionally, these pesticides may have contaminated groundwater, putting numerous endangered species at further risk. Species potentially impacted by the unregulated sale include Orcas and Chinook salmon.

According to news stories on several outlets, no allegations of harm have yet been made regarding customers or threatened wildlife.

Amazon Will Need a License to Continue Sales

Besides paying the $2.5 million settlement, Amazon must get a license in order to sell the pesticides in the future. The online seller will also have to make a number of changes to block unqualified buyers from purchasing the pesticides, intentionally or otherwise. Thus far, Amazon has cooperated with the state’s request for records related to the case.

It’s possible that some customers bought the pesticides without understanding the risks involved. Customers who bought pesticides on Amazon between 2013 and 2020 should contact Amazon directly.

Jury Reaches a Verdict Regarding the Lawsuit Filed Against Craig Wright, Man Who Claims To Be Satoshi

Bitcoin has completely changed the way people look at the economy; however, the creator of the cryptocurrency is still unknown, going only by the name Satoshi. Recently, an Australian computer scientist who claims to have invented Bitcoin was informed by a jury in the United States that he needs to pay more than $100 million in damages due to claims that he cheated a friend, now deceased, over intellectual property related to the digital currency.

Taking place in federal court in Miami, the jury took more than a week to reach a verdict. The verdict came after a trial that lasted more than three weeks. Even though the jury rejected those claims made against Craig Wright, the Australian computer scientist, the jury still decided that the computer scientist owed the plaintiff more than $100 million. Of note, this trial does not settle the debate over the creator of the renowned cryptocurrency.

The lawsuit was brought by the brother of Dave Kleiman, who is a cybersecurity expert who passed away in 2013. The lawsuit alleged that Kleiman worked with Wright during the early years of Bitcoin, seeking to mine the cryptocurrency during its early phases. The lawsuit alleges that Wright did not give Kleiman his fair share of the mined Bitcoin, meaning that he was shorted hundreds of millions of dollars, given the rapid growth of Bitcoin during the past decade.

Even though Craig Wright feels that the verdict proves he is the creator of Bitcoin, most other people disagree. A lot of investors in Bitcoin view Craig Wright as a fake, and the result of the trial has done little to convince the public that this man is the true creator of Bitcoin itself.

Even though the verdict and settlement amount can be staggering in the eyes of a lot of people, Bitcoin has appreciated significantly since the time of the alleged incident, meaning that Wright could have billions of dollars in Bitcoin to his name. This could be the reason why he is not going to appeal the verdict. On the other hand, an attorney representing Kleiman hailed the verdict as marking a new precedent in the history of cryptocurrency.

Juries Award Multimillion Dollar Verdicts in Lawsuits Against Walmart

When people take a trip to the grocery store, they usually expect to grab a shopping cart, find what they need, and check out without issue. Unfortunately, for a woman located in South Carolina, her trip to Walmart in 2015 took an unusual turn.

When she set foot inside the Walmart, she felt a sharp pain in the bottom of her foot. She looked down and found that a rusty nail had gone right through her shoe. It has locked itself in her foot, and she went to the hospital as quickly as possible to get the wound treated. Unfortunately, the area got infected, and she needed to go through multiple operations to have most of her right leg amputated. Initially, it was just her toe; however, the infection continued to spread through her foot. Several months later, she needed to have her leg amputated above the knee as well.

Since that time, her life has been altered tremendously. She spends much of her time in a wheelchair, and she is unable to live the life she once did. In 2017, she filed a lawsuit against Walmart, alleging that Walmart was negligent in leaving a rusty nail on the floor. She and her attorney took the case to trial, where a jury awarded her $10 million as a result of her injuries. Her attorney says that this money is going to be used to make her home more handicapped accessible, purchase prosthetic limbs to allow her to restore some degree of mobility, and cover a wide variety of medical expenses, including those she will incur during the rest of her life.

Even though Walmart appreciates the services of the jury, they do not agree with the verdict; however, April Jones is not the only person to be awarded a significant amount of money by a jury following an incident in the store.

More than $2 million in damages were awarded to an individual in Mobile County, AL after they were falsely accused of stealing groceries. The individual went through the self-checkout lane, paid for all the groceries, but was then accused of stealing them by a local Walmart. Following the false accusations, this individual filed a lawsuit and won the case as well.

Costco Fighting Legal Battle in Washington State

Major grocery retailer Costco is facing a legal challenge in its home state of Washington. Residents of Lake Stevens, WA (a town about 45 miles north of their central headquarters) have filed a lawsuit to prevent the chain from opening a new retail location in their town. The group, called Livable Lake Stevens, has a history of fighting against Costco’s expansion into their neighborhood. This lawsuit is one of several similar suits the residents have filed over the past three years with the express purpose of denying Costco the opportunity to build on land that they own. The resident group has also held multiple protests at city council meetings trying to stop development at the site.

This time, the residents filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Army Corps of Engineers. The 40 acre plot was recently allowed to start fill dirt operations, despite the fact that the property contains wetland areas. The plaintiffs believe that the process to gain proper permitting to fill wetlands at the site was rushed. Several experts, however, have remarked that the lawsuit is likely the last attempt that can be made to prevent the store from starting construction.

Many of the residents are concerned about an increase in traffic through their neighborhoods. In fact, one study estimated a nearly 50% increase in traffic on major roads within a one mile radius of the store. Members of Livable Lake Stevens point to this study as the main reason why the store should not be built in their area.

There are, however, many residents in Lake Stevens, Wa who want to see the Costco open in their neighborhood. Costco has a reputation for high wages, and the company’s press releases regarding the expansion are quick to point out their $24 an hour average salaries. These retail positions also come with benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans. With a typical store bringing approximately 275 new jobs to an area, there are many people in Lake Stevens who want to see the store open as soon as possible.

For now, everyone will have to wait and see what the courts decide in the federal lawsuit.