Alexis Wade v. Elemis USA Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 21, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00515
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALEXIS WADE, CASE NO. C26-0515-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 ELEMIS USA INC.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff Alexis Wade filed this putative class action in King County Superior Court, 13 complaining that Defendant Elemis USA, Inc., sent her and other Washington consumers 14 marketing emails with false or deceptive subject lines, in violation of Washington’s Commercial 15 Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) and Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). See Dkt. No. 1-1. Elemis 16 USA removed the action to this Court. Dkt. No. 1. Elemis USA subsequently filed a motion to 17 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, to strike certain putative class 18 allegations. Dkt. No. 26. 19 The courts in this district have questioned whether plaintiffs in similar actions lack Article 20 III standing, and have handled that question differently. See, e.g., Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 21 3:25-cv-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026) (finding that plaintiff 22 satisfies the standing requirement); Nuri v. True Religion Apparel, No. 2:25-cv-00690-LK, 2026 23 WL 864886 (W.D. Wash. March 30, 2026) (remanding for lack of standing); Minute Orders, 24 1 Harrington v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, No. 25-1115 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 48 (finding the 2 question of whether plaintiffs lack standing to be “unclear” and ordering supplemental briefing), 3 Dkt. No. 64 (staying case pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Montes v. SPARC Group, LLC, No.

4 23-35496 (“Montes I”)). 5 To establish Article III standing, “a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact 6 that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the 7 defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC 8 v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). A court in the Eastern District of Washington has found 9 that a plaintiff in a similar CEMA/CPA action lacked Article III standing because her complaint 10 failed to allege a concrete harm, and that order has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. See Montes 11 v. Catalyst Brands LLC, No. 2:25-CV-0281-TOR, 2025 WL 3485827, *2–3 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 12 2025) (“Montes II”). Briefing in the appeal is ongoing. See Montes v. Penney OpCo, LLC, No.

13 26-241 (9th Cir. 2026). 14 “It is the duty of federal courts to assure themselves that their jurisdiction is not being 15 exceeded.” HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc., 55 F.4th 1232, 1238 (9th Cir. 16 2022) (quoting In re Ryther, 799 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1986)). Because the resolution of the 17 Montes II appeal is likely to provide guidance to this Court on the threshold jurisdictional question 18 of standing, a stay of this case may be appropriate while that appeal is pending. See Landis v. N. 19 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (holding that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to 20 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 21 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Leyva v. Certified Grocers 22 of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is

23 efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before 24 it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”). 1 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than June 1, 2026, why this case 2 should not be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Montes II appeal. The parties’ 3 responses to this order shall not exceed 1,800 words. Failure to respond to this order will be

4 construed as consent to a stay. The clerk is directed to RE-NOTE the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 5 26) for June 1, 2026. 6 Dated this 21st day of May, 2026. 7 A 8 Kymberly K. Evanson 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24