Maidhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Maidhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security (Maidhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 POINTSTORY LLC, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-1691-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 PROTALUS USA LLC, 12 Defendant. 13
14 At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law on 15 Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). In Washington, a plaintiff who is a 16 party to a valid express contract is bound by the provisions of that contract and may not bring a 17 claim for unjust enrichment for issues arising under the contract’s subject matter. See Chandler 18 v. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth., 17 Wash.2d 591, 604 (1943); see also Hurlbut v. Crines, 14 Wash. 19 App. 2d 660, 672-73 (2020). Defendant contends that all work performed was under a 20 contractual agreement, and Plaintiff did not perform any work outside of this contract. Plaintiff 21 acknowledges that an unjust enrichment claim is not applicable when damages arise solely from 22 a contractual breach and admits that all damages sought are based on contractual invoices. 23 1 Consequently, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s unjust 2 enrichment claim with prejudice. 3 Dated this 15th day of May, 2025. 4 A 5 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Maidhoff v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maidhoff-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2025.