Shenzhen Benxiang Photoelectric Co., Ltd. and Chuanli Sun v. Kappa AgTech, LLC

Opinion

2 3 4

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

PHOTOELECTRIC CO., LTD. and Case No. 2:25-cv-02034-JHC 9 CHUANLI SUN,

Plaintiffs, 11 v.

13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Kappa AgTech, LLC’s Motion 16 for Attorney’s Fees Under RCW 4.28.185(5). The Court has considered the materials 17 submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, the rest of the file, and the 18 governing law. Being fully advised, the Court ORDERS as follows: 19 The Court is inclined to follow the reasoning of other courts in this District to 20 exercise its discretion not to award fees under the circumstances presented. See 21 22 Expeditors Int’l of Wash., Inc. v. Cadena, 2024 WL 664187, at *2–3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 23 16, 2024); HDT Bio Corp. v. Emcure Pharms., Ltd., 2024 WL 553699 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24 12, 2024); Cabell v. Zorro Prods., Inc., 2015 WL 11233121(W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2015); 25 see also Plintron Techs. USA LLC v. Phillips, 2025 WL 3773757, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 26

ORDER - 1- 2, 2025) (collecting cases and referring to “parade of decisions denying a fee award to 2 foreign defendants who prevail on jurisdictional grounds”). The Court agrees with the 3 Plintron court that a finding of harassment would support a fee award and that “a finding that the plaintiff acted in good faith or had a colorable basis or invoking jurisdiction weigh

6 against an award.” /d. Here, the Court finds neither harassment nor bad faith on the part 7 of Plaintiffs; and as Defendant says, Plaintiffs’ theory for personal jurisdiction is a 8 “familiar misstep” that has even been recently made by another federal court. Dkt. # 10 at 9 9 (citing SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Grp., 100 F.4th 1371, 1373-74 101 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Thus, the Court DENIES the motion. DATED this 8th day of May, 2026.

“ oka 4, Char 15 John H. Chun United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 2- No. 25-cv-02034-JHC