Wedi Corp. v. Wright

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:15-cv-00671
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT SEATTLE 5 WEDI CORP., 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. C15-671 TSZ 8 BRIAN WRIGHT; HYDRO-BLOK MINUTE ORDER USA LLC; and HYDROBLOK 9 INTERNATIONAL LTD., 10 Defendants. 11 SOUND PRODUCT SALES L.L.C., Counterclaimant, 12

v. 13 WEDI CORP., 14 Counter-Defendant. 15

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 16 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 17 (1) The motion to amend judgment brought by wedi Corp. (“wedi”), docket no. 304, is DENIED. Contrary to wedi’s contention, the Partial Judgment entered on 18 December 6, 2019, docket no. 296, is consistent with the terms of the parties’ settlement: 19 THE COURT: We’re going to dismiss all the claims other than what’s covered by those two orders. We’re going to enter a judgment that will 20 start the clock ticking on the right to appeal the matters covered by the two orders, [docket nos.] 260 and 266, and then the prevailing party would have 21 a right to at least seek attorney’s fees and costs in connection with what was decided by those two orders. . . . Is that kind of where we are? 22 MR. MCMAHON: Yes, Your Honor, I believe so. This is Brian McMahon. 1 MR. BECKA: Defendants are preserving their right [to] seek fees and costs for the claims that wedi is going to be appealing, is the agreement of the 2 parties. 3 Tr. (Dec. 5, 2019) at 12:23-13:13 (docket no. 297). To the extent wedi argues that the Lanham Act and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act preclude Brian Wright, Sound 4 Product Sales L.L.C., Hydro-Blok USA LLC, and Hydroblok International Ltd. (collectively, “Wright”) from being awarded costs because they were defendants as to 5 such claims, its position lacks merit. See Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013) (holding that the specific cost provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 6 did not displace the “venerable presumption” of Rule 54(d)(1) that prevailing parties are entitled to costs); see also Lochridge v. Lindsey Mgmt. Co., 824 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2016) 7 (applying Marx in the context of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which expressly addresses awarding costs to prevailing plaintiffs, but is silent with respect to prevailing defendants). 8 To be clear, the Partial Judgment merely indicates how costs may be sought, i.e., in the manner set forth in Local Civil Rule 54(d); the Court has made no ruling concerning 9 whether or the extent to which Wright might recover costs. See Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (observing that Rule 10 54(d)(1) vests the district court with discretion to refuse to tax costs). (2) The referral of Wright’s motion for costs, docket no. 301, to Deputy Clerk 11 In-Charge Joe Whiteley is VACATED, and such motion is RENOTED to March 20, 2020. 12 (3) Wright’s motion for attorney’s fees, docket no. 298, is likewise RENOTED 13 to March 20, 2020. 14 (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 15 Dated this 13th day of February, 2020. 16 William M. McCool 17 Clerk 18 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22