Kenneth Aronson v. 5 Star Apparel LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

KENNETH ARONSON, CASE NO. C25-2691JLR Plaintiff, ORDER v. Defendant.

Before the court is Defendant 5 Star Apparel LLC’s (“5 Star”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Kenneth Aronson’s amended complaint. (MTD (Dkt. # 20); Reply (Dkt. # 30); see Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 18).) 5 Star argues that this action must be dismissed because (1) Mr. Aronson fails to state a CEMA violation; (2) Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”), ch. 19.190 RCW, is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) CEMA is pre-empted by the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (“CAN-SPAM”) Act; and (4) Mr. Aronson’s Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim fails because it depends on his CEMA claim. (See generally MTD.)

Courts in this District have uniformly rejected similar arguments raised by other defendants in motions to dismiss other CEMA/CPA actions. See, e.g., Ma v. Nike, 816 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1230-32 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2026); Harrington v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1218, 1220 (W.D. Wash. 2025), reconsideration denied, 2026 WL 125134 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 2026); Agnew v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, No. C25-2006JHC, 2026 WL 764140, at *1 (W.D. Wash. March 18, 2026); Jerde v. BYLT

LLC, No. C25-1496JHC, 2026 WL 415445, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026); Kempf v. Fullbeauty Brands Ops., LLC, No. C25-1141TSZ, 2026 WL 395677, at *4-7 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2026). Furthermore, some courts have questioned whether named plaintiffs in similar actions lack Article III standing and/or whether the amount in controversy satisfies the

minimum for either diversity jurisdiction or Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hutton v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. C25-1922KKE, 2026 WL 1183241, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2026); Nuri v. True Religion Apparel, No. C25-0690LK, 2026 WL 864886 (W.D. Wash. March 30, 2026); Devivo v. Sheex Inc., No. C25-5807DGE, 2026 WL 775625 (W.D. Wash. March 19, 2026); Minute Order,

Harrington, No. C25-1115TSZ (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026), Dkt. # 48. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing (1) whether Mr. Aronson has standing to pursue his claims in this action and, if not, whether this action should be remanded to King County Superior Court (see Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1)); and (2) whether CEMA provides for damages to be calculated on a per-email basis or a per-recipient basis, and, depending on that answer, whether the

resulting calculations meet the amount-in-controversy threshold for diversity jurisdiction or CAFA jurisdiction. 5 Star shall file its supplemental brief regarding these issues no later than June 8, 2026. Mr. Aronson shall file a responsive supplemental brief by no later than June 23, 2026. Intervenor Plaintiff the State of Washington may file an optional responsive supplemental brief by no later than June 23, 2026. The parties’ supplemental briefs shall not exceed 3,000 words in length. The Clerk is DIRECTED to

renote 5 Star’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 20) for June 23, 2026. Dated this 22nd day of May, 2026. A United States District Judge