Money Mailer, LLC v. Wade Brewer

Filing 334

ORDER denying Defendants's 326 MOTION for Reconsideration re 325 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

Case 2:15-cv-01215-RSL Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

MONEY MAILER, LLC,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11
12
13
14

Defendant.
________________________________
WADE G. BREWER,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,

16

18

ORDER

WADE G. BREWER,

15

17

Case No. C15-1215RSL

v.
MONEY MAILER, LLC, and MONEY
MAILER FRANCHISE CORP.,

19

Counterclaim Defendants.

20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on “Wade Brewer’s Motion for

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
27
28

Money Mailer’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and cannot be reasserted against
ORDER - 1

Case 2:15-cv-01215-RSL Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 3

1

Brewer. He therefore prevailed on those claims even if Money Mailer’s abandonment of

2

the claims deprived Brewer of the opportunity to prove the merits of his defense.

3
4
5

Nevertheless, the outcome remains the same. Both parties asserted claims in this
litigation,1 both parties prevailed on major issues, and both parties must therefore bear

6

their own attorney’s fees under Washington law. See Am. Nursery Prod., Inc. v. Indian

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
10
11

litigation (in which case the tally is thirteen successes for Money Mailer and two for
Brewer) or only the major claims (in which case Money Mailer succeeded on two and

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
15
16

only where the party has obtained affirmative relief and/or substantially prevailed,
certification to the Washington Supreme Court is not warranted.

17
18
19
20

//

21
22

//

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Contrary to his repeated assertions, Brewer’s thirteen statutory, tort, and contract claims were not merely
defenses to Money Mailer’s claims.
ORDER - 2

Case 2:15-cv-01215-RSL Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 3

1

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court reconsiders its Order Denying Brewer’s

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
5

certification.

6
7

Dated this 29th day of August, 2022.

8
9

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3