Ferguson v. Active Response Group

348 F. App'x 255
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 8, 2009·No. No. 08-35709·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Mark J. Ferguson appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant Quin-street, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the summary judgment decision de novo, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Ferguson lacks standing to pursue his claim under the CAN-SPAM Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. See Gordon, 575 F.3d at 1048-57 (holding that a plaintiff who merely provided e-mail accounts and hosted a website on leased server space did not have standing under CAN-SPAM). In addition, the district court correctly concluded that Ferguson’s state law claims under Wash. Rev.Code § 19.190.010 et seq. and Wash. Rev.Code § 19.86.010 et seq. are preempted by CAN-SPAM. See Gordon, 575 F.3d at 1057-66.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ferguson v. Active Response Group, 348 F. App'x 255 (9th Cir. 2009).

348 F. App'x 255 (Ferguson v. Active Response Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.
575 F.3d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)