Money Mailer, LLC v. Wade Brewer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 2:15-cv-01215
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 MONEY MAILER, LLC, Case No. C15-1215RSL 7

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 WADE G. BREWER, 11 Defendant. 12 ________________________________ 13 WADE G. BREWER, 14 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 15

16 v.

17 MONEY MAILER, LLC, and MONEY 18 MAILER FRANCHISE CORP.,

19 Counterclaim Defendants.

21 This matter comes before the Court on “Wade Brewer’s Motion for 22 23 Reconsideration or Certification re Petition for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and 24 Costs.” Dkt. # 326. The Court is persuaded that it erred to the extent that the prior analysis 25 turned on the fact that Brewer did not defeat Money Mailer’s contract claims on the merits. 26 Money Mailer’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and cannot be reasserted against 27 Brewer. He therefore prevailed on those claims even if Money Mailer’s abandonment of 1 2 the claims deprived Brewer of the opportunity to prove the merits of his defense. 3 Nevertheless, the outcome remains the same. Both parties asserted claims in this 4 litigation,1 both parties prevailed on major issues, and both parties must therefore bear 5 their own attorney’s fees under Washington law. See Am. Nursery Prod., Inc. v. Indian 6 7 Wells Orchards, 115 Wn.2d 217, 234-35 (1990); Country Manor MHC, LLC v. Doe, 176 8 Wn. App. 601, 613 (2013). Regardless whether one counts every claim asserted in this 9 litigation (in which case the tally is thirteen successes for Money Mailer and two for 10 Brewer) or only the major claims (in which case Money Mailer succeeded on two and 11 12 Brewer succeeded on one), Brewer was not the substantially-prevailing party. Because 13 Washington law is clear that a contractual fee award is appropriate in these circumstances 14 only where the party has obtained affirmative relief and/or substantially prevailed, 15 certification to the Washington Supreme Court is not warranted. 16 17 18 19 // 20

21 22 // 23 24 25 26 1 Contrary to his repeated assertions, Brewer’s thirteen statutory, tort, and contract claims were not merely 27 defenses to Money Mailer’s claims. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court reconsiders its Order Denying Brewer’s 1 2 Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. # 325), again finds that Brewer does not qualify as a 3 prevailing party in the circumstances presented here, and denies Brewer’s request for 4 certification. 5

6 7 Dated this 29th day of August, 2022.

9 Robert S. Lasnik 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27