Charles Cultrara v. Timex Group USA Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00445
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CHARLES CULTRARA, CASE NO. C26-0445-KKE 8

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

10 TIMEX GROUP USA INC.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff filed this putative class action in King County Superior Court, complaining that 13 Defendant sent him and other Washington consumers marketing emails with false or deceptive 14 subject lines, in violation of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) and 15 Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). See Dkt. No. 1-4. Defendant removed the action to this Court. 16 Dkt. No. 1. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 26. 18 The courts in this district have questioned whether plaintiffs in similar actions lack Article 19 III standing, and have handled that question differently. See, e.g., Liss v. Skechers USA Inc., No. 20 3:25-cv-05861-DGE, 2026 WL 1392327, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026) (finding that plaintiff 21 satisfies the standing requirement); Nuri v. True Religion Apparel, No. 2:25-cv-00690-LK, 2026 22 WL 864886 (W.D. Wash. March 30, 2026) (remanding for lack of standing); Minute Orders, 23 Harrington v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, No. 25-1115 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Dkt. No. 48 (finding the 24 1 question of whether plaintiffs lack standing to be “unclear” and ordering supplemental briefing), 2 Dkt. No. 64 (staying case pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Montes v. SPARC Group, LLC, No. 3 23-35496 (“Montes I”)).

4 To establish Article III standing, “a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact 5 that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the 6 defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC 7 v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). A court in the Eastern District of Washington has found 8 that a plaintiff in a similar CEMA/CPA action lacked Article III standing because her complaint 9 failed to allege a concrete harm, and that order has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. See Montes 10 v. Catalyst Brands LLC, No. 2:25-CV-0281-TOR, 2025 WL 3485827, *2–3 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 11 2025) (“Montes II”). Briefing in the appeal is ongoing. See Montes v. Penney OpCo, LLC, No. 12 26-241 (9th Cir. 2026).

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

23 it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”). 24 1 The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than July 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. 5 Dated this 12th day of June, 2026. 6 A 7 Kymberly K. Evanson 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24