RNWLG Obtains Malicious Prosecution Verdict

On March 17, 2026, a Yakima County Superior Court jury awarded Mark Peterson $480,000 in damages and found that the City of Yakima, including its agents former City Manager Tony O’Rourke and former Deputy Fire Chief Mark Soptich, liable for malicious prosecution. Attorneys Matt Crotty, Matt Mensik, and Mike Love tried the case.

In 2013, the City of Yakima was pushing a new “Downtown Master Plan” that include a new “Downtown Plaza.” The plan was controversial. Mark Peterson was visible and vocal opponent of the plan and plaza. Mr. Peterson organized opposition to the Master Plan vocally opposing the proposal directly to city officials.

On November 5, 2013, Mr. Peterson attended a presentation by City officials where he continued to oppose the plan. Later that afternoon, a fire inspector appeared at Mr. Peterson’s store and told him that he needed to completely remodel his basement showroom, despite have many years of clean fire inspections.

When the fire inspector returned in January 2014 for a “compliance reinspection,” Mr. Peterson was not present. His staff asked that the fire inspector make an appointment for the inspection. Instead, the City of Yakima charged Mr. Peterson with “denying a fire inspection,” even though Mr. Peterson was not present at the time of the attempted inspection.

The evidence showed that City officials, including former City Manager Tony O’Rourke, personally involved themselves in the municipal misdemeanor prosecution or Mr. Peterson and pushed for his prosecution. Many months later, the City of Yakima dismissed the prosecution admitted there was not probable cause for the charge.

In 2017, Mr. Peterson filed suit against the City of Yakima, and its agents, for malicious prosecution claiming that the charges were started and continued for improper purposes, specifically, his vocal opposition to the City’s plans.

The case involves two appearances before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The second Ninth Circuit argument happened following a one week federal jury trial that took place in August 2022 where the federal judge improperly instructed the jury on an element of the malicious prosecution claim. Attorney Casey Bruner successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit which allowed the case to be retried.

From March 9 through March 16, 2026, nine years later, Mr. Peterson finally received a fair trial, and his malicious prosecution was presented to a six-member jury. The next day, the jury found that the City of Yakima, including its agents former City Manager Tony O’Rourke and former Deputy Fire Chief Mark Soptich, liable for malicious prosecution. The jury award $4,000 in lost wages, $189,000 in lost business revenue, $12,000 in attorney’s fees defending the underlying criminal case, and $275,000 in emotional distress, pain, and suffering.

News on the verdict can be found here: https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/jury-finds-city-and-former-officials-liable-for-prosecuting-yakima-businessman-over-plaza/article_71e99242-11c4-4f26-88e9-78caf99e2859.html

For more information on RNWLG’s trial and appellate practice group, please contact Matt Crotty, Matt Mensik, Michael Love, or Casey Bruner.

RNWLG Obtains $1.8 Million Jury Verdict in Favor of Corey Jacobsen for NIL Violations

On February 6, 2026, a Kootenai County jury found that Rocky Mountain Hunting Calls & Supplies, LLC (“Rocky Mountain”), a Post Falls based company, violated Idaho law by using Corey Jacobsen’s name, image and likeness (“NIL”) without his permission for a three year period in the promotion of its products. The jury awarded $900,000 in economic damages and $900,000 in general damages.

Corey Jacobsen is an eleven-time world elk-calling champion, and began granting permission for RMHC to utilize his personal name, image and likeness to promote Rocky Mountain products that were part of the “Elk101 Signature Series” of elk calls in 2011.  Mr. Jacobsen further alleged significant changes occurred at Rocky Mountain in 2022 that led him to sever ties. In November of 2022, Mr. Jacobsen instructed Rocky Mountain to cease and desist using his NIL.  Mr. Jacobsen alleged that Rocky Mountain ignored his repeated demands to cease the use of his NIL and his subsequent attempts to resolve issues relating to Rocky Mountain’s existing product inventory.  In February 2023, Rocky Mountain sued Mr. Jacobsen. Mr. Jacobsen then counter-sued Rocky Mountain for invasion of privacy, specifically for using his NIL without his permission.

Before trial, the court dismissed Rocky Mountain’s claims against Mr. Jacobsen and allowed Mr. Jacobsen’s invasion of privacy claim to proceed to trial.  The trial ran from February 2 – 6.

The case is captioned CV28-23-0741 Kootenai County, Idaho District Court.

Judge Casey Simmons presided over the trial.

For more information about RNWLG’s trial practice, please contact Matt Crotty, Matt Mensik, or Casey Bruner.

RNWLG Obtains Largest USERRA Settlement in History

RNWLG Obtains Largest USERRA Settlement in History

On September 26, 2025, Southwest Airlines agreed to pay $18,500,000 to settle a class action accusing the carrier of failing to provide paid leave to employees who took short-term military leave. The preliminary settlement was filed with the Court on September 25, 2025 and will be reviewed in the coming days. The lawsuit alleged that Southwest wrongly denied pay when they took 14 days or fewer of military leave, despite paying for other absences including sick leave, bereavement leave and jury duty—a violation of USERRA, a federal law protecting military personnel in their civilian employment. Approximately 2,791 eligible Southwest employees would receive an average $4,421, after legal fees of up to one-third of the settlement fund are deducted, court papers show. As part of the settlement, Southwest also agreed to provide some paid days for military service going forward.

For more information on RNWLG’s USERRA practice, please contact Matt Crotty at mzc@rnwlg.com.

More information on the settlement can be found here: https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/southwest-airlines-pay-185-million-over-employees-military-leave-2025-09-26/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Docket&utm_term=092925&lctg=5f3422cdf16b3f2d6dcd510e

Bussey v. Driscoll

Case involved Ryan Bussey, a former member of the 75th Ranger Regiment, receiving a Bad Conduct Discharge for being found guilty of wrongful sexual conduct. He sought to upgrade his discharge on the ground that combat-induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) contributed to his conduct. In denying the petition, the Army Board of Correction of Military Records agreed that Bussey had PTSD, but concluded that it was not a mitigating factor for the crime of conviction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Board’s finding claiming the Board erred in applying DoD guidelines.

Clarkson v. Alaska Air Lines

Obtained $4.75 million settlement in paid leave USERRA lawsuit plus commitment from company to pay four days of drill for military reservists.

Woodbury v. Housing Authority of Asotin County

On November 15, 2024, attorneys Matt Crotty and Michael Love obtained a $382,658.00 jury verdict on a disability discrimination and wrongful discharge case. In that case Ms. Woodbury proved her former employer, HAAC, fired her after her return from bereavement leave following the tragic death of her daughter first on the basis of her perceived mental disability and then after she hired a lawyer. The jury also found HAAC failed to accommodate Ms. Woodbury’s disability.

RNWLG Wins Appeal Underscoring Plaintiffs’ Rights to Their Day in Court

We are happy to share a significant legal triumph for our client at the Court of Appeals, which highlights not only the importance of protecting individuals who stand up for their rights but also the crucial role of ensuring fair judicial processes.

Case Overview

Matthew Z. Crotty and Asti M. Gallina recently achieved a substantial victory in a complex case involving the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The case centered around a father who had filed a lawsuit against a private school for retaliation. The father alleged that the children’s school had retaliated against him due to his advocacy efforts on behalf of his special-needs children.

The Legal Battle

The school moved to dismiss the father’s lawsuit, arguing that the claims were barred by issue preclusion, which bars re-litigation of issues already determined in a prior proceeding. The school contended that the father had previously raised similar retaliation arguments in a family law modification proceeding concerning his parenting plan. Although the family law court did not explicitly rule on the retaliation claims, it had awarded educational and medical decision-making authority to the mother and, indirectly, criticized the father’s advocacy efforts.

The trial court agreed with the school’s argument, leading to a dismissal of the father’s WLAD claims and, astonishingly, imposing sanctions exceeding $145,000 against the father and labeling his lawsuit as frivolous.

The Court of Appeals Ruling

Our firm took the case to the Court of Appeals, where we challenged both the dismissal of the lawsuit and the imposition of sanctions. We argued that the trial court’s application of issue preclusion was incorrect and that the sanctions were unwarranted.

The Court of Appeals agreed with our position, delivering an important clarification on the reach of issue preclusion to civil rights cases:

1. Issue Preclusion Rejected: The appellate court clarified that issue preclusion did not apply in this case. It noted that, while the father had raised similar issues in both proceedings, the contexts were fundamentally different. The family law court’s decision focused on the father’s communication style rather than the content of his protected advocacy. Therefore, the WLAD lawsuit, which addressed whether his communications were indeed protected, was not precluded.

2. Sanctions Reversed: The Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court’s decision to award over $145,000 in sanctions. It found that the trial court had abused its discretion by deeming the father’s lawsuit frivolous. This reversal underscores the importance of allowing legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated fairly without undue penalization.

What This Means

For the father, his case is not over. But this victory means he will get the opportunity to have his day in court.

This appellate victory is also a significant step forward for individuals advocating for special-needs children and others standing up for their rights under WLAD. It affirms that legal protections for advocacy are robust and that procedural fairness must be upheld, even in complex legal battles.

Our firm is proud to represent our client in this crucial matter, and we are committed to continuing our work in defending the rights of those who face retaliation for their advocacy. For more information on RNWLG’s appellate practice group, please contact Asti Gallina at amg@rnwlg.com.

Manina et. al. v. Manina, et. al.

Attorneys Matt Crotty and Kacy Tellessen obtained a $4.5 million jury verdict in a multi-defendant sexual abuse and negligence case against involving sexual abuse of a minor child and the alleged failures of that minor child’s counselor and Guardian ad Litem’s (GAL) failure to properly and timely report the abuse to law enforcement. The Manina v. Manina Complaint includes assault and battery claims against Scott Manina and negligence claims against Jane Doe’s former counselor and GAL. On July 10, 2024, a jury awarded Jane Doe $4.5 million in damages against Scott Manina. The claim against the counselor was resolved. The claim against the GAL was dismissed by the trial court but will be subject to an appeal.

Hamilton v. Newport Hospital & Health Services

01-2023-GOV-00038 (OAH 2023)

Obtained finding that current and former CEO of hospital retaliated against whistleblower and full back pay following one week trial.

Boyd v. Acro, Inc. et. al.

2-21-00201-13 (Grant Co. Sup. Ct. 2023)

Obtained $530,750.00 jury verdict in sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge case.

O’Kell v. U.S. Department of Interior

598 F.Supp.3d 1032 (E.D. Wn. 2022)

Obtained $1,683,351 verdict following two-week ADEA age discrimination and retaliation trial.

Kristi Horn v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

SF-0752-21-0310-I-3 (MSPB 2022)

Obtained finding that government wrongfully terminated employee in violation of due process and recovered full backpay for employee. 

Shepler v. Terry’s Truck Center, et. al.

25 Wn.App.2d 67 (2022)

Obtained appellate court affirmation of arbitration win in failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and workers compensation retaliation case resulting in full recovery of back pay. 

Tsui v. Walmart, Inc.

20-cv-12309-MPK (D. Mass. 2021)

Obtained $10,000,000 USERRA class action settlement and agreement from Walmart to pay up to 30 days of military leave annually.

Hall v. L-3 Technologies, Inc., et. al.

2019 WL 3845460 (E.D. Wn. 2019)

Obtained settlement valued at $2,000,000 in first known USERRA failure to hire discrimination class action lawsuit.

Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines

 3:17-cv-03972-JD (N.D. Cal. 2019)

Obtained USERRA class action settlement valued at $5,800,000 in missed 401(k) contributions, $13,000,000 in unpaid sick leave, and finding from court that “Class Counsel has capably and effectively represented the Class Members’ interests."

Waite v. Gonzaga University

2:17-cv-00416-SAB (E.D. Wash. 2019)

Represented Gonzaga University in federal and state law discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation lawsuit that sought $5,000,000 in damages. Obtained complete defense verdict following week long jury trial.

Allman v. American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Ret. Ben. Plan, et. al.

1:14-cv-10138-IT (D. Mass. 2017)

Obtained $6,000,000 (+) settlement in USERRA pension benefit class action.

Zhu v. North Central ESD

171, 2:15-cv-183-JLQ (E.D. Wash. 2016)

Obtained $450,000 jury verdict in retaliatory failure to hire lawsuit and obtained summary judgment adjudication that the defendant violated Washington’s Public Record Act by wrongfully withholding documents.

Tuten v. United Airlines, Inc.

41 F.Supp.3d 1003 (D. Colo. 2014)

Co-lead counsel for plaintiff in federal USERRA class action resulting in $6.15 million settlement and with the Court stating in written opinion that “the Court is of the view that the results achieved for the Plaintiff class in this case were outstanding, worthy of being emulated by class representatives and counsel in other comparable litigation."