Legal Opinion

Ruffino v. City of Puyallup

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided March 29, 2019No. CASE NO. C18-5381 BHSPublished

1Opinion of the Court

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Roy Ruffino's ("Ruffino") motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 56, and Defendant the City of Puyallup's ("City") renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 59. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants Ruffino's motion in part and denies it in part and grants the City's motion in part and denies it in part for the reasons stated herein.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ruffino claims that the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API