John C. Coughenour
How Judge Coughenour decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Reads insurer duty-to-defend broadly and is willing to find bad faith as a matter of law on summary judgment: an insurer that denies a tender on 'arguable' policy readings or 'questionable' law is estopped from contesting coverage.
“Zurich has offered no reasonable basis for its breach of the duty to defend, and the Court concludes that it acted in bad faith when it did so. ... Because the Court has made a finding of bad faith, Washington law requires that Zurich be estopped from denying coverage.”
Procedural preferences
Decides motions on the briefing without oral argument by default ('the Court finds oral argument unnecessary') -- this appears verbatim in nearly every Coughenour merits order.
“Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby ...”
Cautions
Will refuse to consider substantive arguments buried in footnotes and warns counsel against the practice.
“Relegating substantive arguments to footnotes is dangerous business. ... Plaintiff's counsel is discouraged from engaging in this practice in the future, and the Court will not address the arguments raised in footnotes.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED.”
“hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein.”
“Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs IFCA, bad faith, and CPA claims (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED.”
“Osborne's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED. The Court finds that Zurich breached its duty to defend Osborne in the arbitration with Renton Heritage on October 23, 2017, that such breach was in bad faith, and that therefore Zurich is estopped by Washington law from refusing to indemnify Osborne”
“both facial and factual challenges to Plaintiffs standing to bring a claim under the FTCA have merit. Accordingly, Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED.”
“hereby GRANTS King County's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) and DENIES Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 26)”
“GRANTS King County's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) and DENIES Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 26)”
“the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 13) and GRANTS the motion to seal (Dkt. No. 16) for the reasons explained herein.”
“GRANTS the motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 13) and GRANTS the motion to seal (Dkt. No. 16)”
“ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CHRISTENSEN'S IFCA COUNTERCLAIM ... the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.”
“hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend for the reasons explained herein.”
“the Government of Guam’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 62) is GRANTED as to Count XI, which is DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED as to the remaining Counts (Counts V, VI, and IX).”
“the Court GRANTS the motions to remand (Dkt. Nos. 4, 20)”
“DENIES the injunctive writ as moot (Dkt. No. 12)”
“The Court DENIES the motion for Rule 11(c) sanctions (Dkt. No. 21) but awards attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), in an amount to be determined by later briefing.”
Put Judge Coughenour's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Coughenour actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Coughenour's own signed orders and cites them.