Wilson v. PTT, LLC
Filing
563
ORDER ON JURY TRIAL. Both actual and enhanced damages in the trial beginning February 3, 2025 will be submitted to the jury. Signed by District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright. (MW)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
9
RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf
Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC
of all others similarly situated,
ORDER ON JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
14
v.
PTT, LLC, doing business as High 5 Games,
LLC; HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I.
ORDER
On January 14, 2025, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing
(1) whether the Seventh Amendment requires a jury to decide whether to award treble damages
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) when CPA claims are brought in
federal court; and (2) if so, how the jury should be instructed. Dkt. 544. The parties filed their
supplemental briefs on January 24, 2025. Dkt. 556, 557.
The parties agree that the Seventh Amendment and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38
provide a right to a jury trial in federal court on treble damages under the CPA. Dkt. 556 at 1–6;
Dkt. 557 at 2–3. The Court agrees with that analysis in the parties’ briefs, which tracks the
24
ORDER ON JURY TRIAL - 1
1
analysis of other courts in this district concluding that the enhanced damages provision of
2
Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act, a similar statute, is subject to the Seventh
3
Amendment’s jury trial right. See, e.g., F.C. Bloxom Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins., No. C10-
4
1603RAJ, 2012 WL 5992286 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 30, 2012); MKB Constructors v. Am. Zurich
5
Ins. Co., No. C13-0611JLR, 2015 WL 1188533 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2015), aff’d, 711 F.
6
App’x 834, 838 (9th Cir. 2017).
7
8
For that reason, both actual and enhanced damages in the trial beginning February 3,
2025 will be submitted to the jury.
9
Defendant High 5 Games also argues in its supplemental brief that the CPA’s enhanced
10
damages provision is preempted by the Seventh Amendment, and that the correct remedy is to
11
invalidate that provision when CPA claims are brought in federal court. Dkt. 557 at 3–6. This
12
argument is essentially an untimely summary judgment motion, to which Plaintiff has had no
13
opportunity to respond, and it cannot fairly be decided before trial begins in one week. If High 5
14
wishes to pursue this argument, it may do so in a post-trial motion under Rule 50.
15
It is so ordered.
16
Dated this 27th day of January, 2025.
17
Tiffany M. Cartwright
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON JURY TRIAL - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?