Wedi Corp. v. Wright et al

Filing 320

MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 304 Motion to Amend Judgment: The referral of Wright's motion for costs, docket no. 301 , to Deputy Clerk In-Charge Joe Whiteley is VACATED, and such motion is RENOTED to 3/20/2020. Wright's motion for attorney's fees, docket no. 298 , is likewise RENOTED to 3/20/2020. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(MW)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5

WEDI CORP.,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN WRIGHT; HYDRO-BLOK
USA LLC; and HYDROBLOK
INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

SOUND PRODUCT SALES L.L.C.,
Counterclaimant,

12
13

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.

10
11

C15-671 TSZ

v.
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
20
21

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
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
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:

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

Yes, Your Honor, I believe so. This is Brian McMahon.

1
2

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
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
In-Charge Joe Whiteley is VACATED, and such motion is RENOTED to March 20,
12 2020.
11

(3)
Wright’s motion for attorney’s fees, docket no. 298, is likewise RENOTED
13 to March 20, 2020.
14
15

(4)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 13th day of February, 2020.
16
William M. McCool
Clerk

17
18

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2