Barton v. Walmart Inc et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 72 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 75 Motion for Summary Judgment; striking as moot 89 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13

NATHEN BARTON,

CASE NO. 23-5063 DGE-RJB
Plaintiff,

v.
WALMART INC., JOHN DOE 1-10,

14

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

17

Plaintiff’s Claims (Dkt. 72), Defendant Walmart Inc.’s (“Walmart”) Motion for Summary

18

Judgment (Dkt. 75), Walmart’s motions to strike (Dkts. 82 and 87), and Plaintiff’s motions to

19

strike (Dkts. 77, 84 and 89). The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motions

20

and remaining file and is fully advised. Oral argument has been requested but is unnecessary to

21

decide the motions.

22

The Plaintiff, pro se, brings this case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer

23

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et. seq., (“TCPA”) and Washington’s Consumer Electronic

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 1

1

Mail Act, RCW 19.190, et. seq., (“CEMA”) in connection with text messages made to a mobile

2

phone number (***)***-1019. Dkt. 12. He seeks damages, including treble damages, and

3

injunctive relief. Id. This is one of dozens of TCPA cases the Plaintiff has filed with varying

4

success. See e.g. Barton v. LeadPoint Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-05372-BHS (W.D. Wash.);

5

Barton v. DirecTV LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05423-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. Asset Realty LLC, et

6

al., No. 3:21-cv-05462-RJB (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. The Rian Group Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-

7

05485-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. JMS Associate Marketing LLC, et al., No. 3:21-cv-05509-

8

RJB (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. Delfgauw, et al., No. 3:21-cv-05610-JRC (W.D. Wash.); Barton v.

9

LendingPoint LLC, et al., No. 3:21-cv-05635-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. American

10

Protection Plans LLC, No. 3:21-cv-05669-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. SelectQuote Insurance

11

Services, No. 3:21-cv-05817-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. America’s Lift Chairs LLC et al.,

12

No. 3:21-cv-05850-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. Sopi Financial LLC, et al., No. 3:21-cv-

13

05934-RJB (W.D. Wash.); Barton v. Allstate Insurance Company, et. al., No. 3:22-cv-5260-JRC;

14

and Barton v. Litigation Practice Group PC, et al., 3:22-cv-05483-TLF. He has also filed cases

15

in other U.S. District Courts (See e.g. Barton c. Associated Credit and Collection Bureau Inc.,

16

No. 3:05-cv-00251 (N.D. Texas)).

17

In any event, in this case, both parties move to strike portions of various pleadings (Dkts.

18

77, 82, 84, 87 and 89) and move for summary judgment (Dkts. 72 and 75). The Plaintiff’s

19

motions to strike should be denied (Dkt. 77) and stricken as moot (Dkts. 84 and 89). Walmart’s

20

motions to strike should be granted, in part, and stricken as moot, in part, (Dkt. 82) and stricken

21

as moot (Dkt. 87). Further, because the undisputed facts show that Walmart did not send the

22

Plaintiff “telephone solicitation” or “commercial text messages,” but messages regarding

23

orders placed by another customer, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 75) should

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 2

1

be granted, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 72) denied, and the case

2

dismissed.

3

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4

According to Walmart, it gives customers who order online or through its mobile phone

5

application (“app”) the option to receive real-time text message updates about pending orders.

6

Dkt. 76-1 at 2. In addition to when they open their accounts, customers are given an additional

7

opportunity to opt to receive text messages about each individual order when they place the

8

order. Id. During the checkout process, on the “Review Order” page, the customer is presented

9

with a checked box and the language “I want to receive text updates about the status of my

10

order.” Id. The customer can uncheck the box. Id. Near the checked box is a space that

11

includes the phone number that is associated with the customer’s account or address; these are

12

provided by the customer when an account is opened or when a customer updates their contact

13

information. Id. at 2-3. If a customer indicates that they want text message updates sent

14

regarding their orders, Walmart typically sends five categories of messages when they apply: (1)

15

order is ready for pickup, (2) order is shipped, delayed, out for delivery, or delivered, (3) some

16

ordered items are unavailable, (4) substitutions for ordered items are possible for unavailable

17

items, and (5) order has been canceled. Dkt. 76-1 at 3-5. These text updates are connected to

18

specific orders. Id. at 3.

19

In 2012, I.M. acquired a mobile phone which was assigned the number ending in 1019, the

20

phone number that is the subject of this lawsuit. Dkt. 76-2 at 6. (I.M. is not a party to this

21

lawsuit and the parties have agreed to use her initials to protect her privacy. Dkts. 72 and 76.)

22

Around 2018 when she still had the phone number ending 1019, I.M. opened an online account

23
24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 3

1

with Walmart to order groceries. Dkt. 76-2 at 6-7 and 16. When she opened the online account,

2

she checked the box that she wanted text messages sent to her phone about her orders. Id. at 14.

3

I.M. uses the Walmart app on her mobile phone to place orders with Walmart and then she or

4

her husband pick the orders up or the orders are delivered to her home. Dkts. 76-2 at 7; 12 at 18.

5

I.M. acknowledges that when she places her orders on her app, a portion of the order process

6

includes a check box that appears that says, “I want to receive text updates about my order.” Id.

7

at 13. She states she doesn’t pay attention to the number listed by the checked box. Id. I.M.

8

acknowledges that she “never really paid attention” to the part of the order form asking about

9

whether she wanted text messages about her order because Walmart always sent her an email

10
11

about the order as well. Id. at 14.
I.M. states that she likes receiving updates from Walmart about her orders while they are in

12

process – for example, if an item is unavailable, or if the order is ready early. Dkt. 76-2 at 20.

13

She also finds it helpful when Walmart notifies her of possible substitutions to consider when an

14

item is unavailable. Id. Customers can designate in their account, or at the time of purchase,

15

whether they want Walmart to automatically substitute items (when an ordered like item is

16

unavailable). Dkt. 83-1 at 2.

17

I.M. kept that phone number ending in 1019 until January of 2020. Dkt. 76-2 at 6. Her ex-

18

husband canceled the phone line, at which time she “lost access to [the phone number].” Dkt. 76-

19

2 at 6 and 76-8 at 9. In July of 2020, when the Plaintiff bought an additional mobile phone (he

20

owns several phones), the phone company reassigned the number ending in 1019 to the Plaintiff.

21

Dkt. 83-4 at 6. Plaintiff registered the number at issue here on the national do-not-call list on

22

February 16, 2021. Dkt. 73 at 2. I.M. did not immediately change her phone number in her

23

Walmart account, so as she directed in her account settings, text messages about her orders

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 4

1

continued to go to the number ending in 1019, even after the number was reassigned to Plaintiff

2

by the phone company. Dkt. 76-2 at 13.

3

The Plaintiff contends that from September 3, 2022 through February 2, 2023, Walmart sent

4

approximately 90 text messages to the number ending in 1019 regarding I.M.’s orders. Dkts. 12

5

and 72 at 26 n.73 (This lawsuit doesn’t include texts past February 2, 2023). It is unclear when

6

I.M. changed the number listed in her Walmart account so that the Plaintiff would no longer

7

receive text messages about her order. I.M. states that now that she has updated the phone

8

number, she receives text messages about her orders. Dkt. 76-2 at 13.

9
10
11

The content of the text messages at issue are uncontested and are drawn from the Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 12). Those text messages - some of which were sent multiple times - provided:


A September 3, 2022 message that read: “Walmart: Part of your order is ready for

12

curbside pickup until Sat, Sep 03. Check in before you go: https://w-mt.co/g/3908R1

13

Reply HELP for info; STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 19.

14



A September 3, 2022 message that read: “As requested, we’ve canceled your Walmart or-

15

der. View updated order details: https://w-mt.co/g/391Zfv Reply HELP for info; STOP to

16

opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 19.

17



An October 22, 2022 message that read: “Sorry, some items in your Walmart order

18

weren’t available. Review your order: https://w-mt.co/g/4GXMnv Reply HELP for help;

19

STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 9.

20



An October 29, 2022 message that read: “Your Walmart order has substitutions.

21

Anything you don’t want? Please let us know soon: https://w-mt.co/g/4KyLN4 Reply

22

HELP for info; STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 9.

23
24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 5

1



A November 16, 2022 message that read: “Some items may be low in stock. Pick

2

substitution preferences for your upcoming Walmart order: https://w-mt.co/g/4NidiA.”

3

Dkt. 12 at 11.

4



5
6

A December 21, 2022 message that read: “Your Walmart order was delivered. Thanks for
shopping with us! Reply HELP for info; STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 21.



A December 24, 2022 message that read: “Great news, [I.M.]! Your Walmart package is

7

out for delivery and should arrive today. Track: https://w-mt.co/g/5rcVub Reply HELP

8

for info; STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 18.

9



A December 27, 2022 message that read: “We’re sorry, some items in your Walmart

10

order were out of stock, so we had to cancel. View details: https://w-mt.co/g/5sGEcP

11

Reply HELP for info; STOP to opt out.” Dkt. 12 at 19.

12



A January 28, 2023 message that read: “Your Walmart curbside pickup is ready. Check

13

in before you leave, so we know you’re on the way: https://w-mt.co/g/5zHyUX Reply

14

HELP for info; STOP to stop.” Dkt. 12 at 24.

15

Aside from Walmart’s response when the Plaintiff texted “STOP,” which is addressed in the

16

following paragraph, the Plaintiff fails to point to any other language in the text messages from

17

Walmart on which he is basing his claims.

18

According to Walmart, customers have the option to stop receiving text message updates

19

about an order anytime by replying “STOP” to the message. Dkt. 76-1 at 8. If the customer

20

replies “STOP,” Walmart sends a message that indicates that they will “no longer receive

21

m[essages] about [their] order.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). No further text messages are sent

22

for any future order unless the customer indicates that they want text message updates about that

23

order at the time of purchase. Id. The Plaintiff states that on three occasions (Sept. 15, 2022;

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 6

1

October 19, 2022; and November 26, 2022), he texted “STOP” in response to the text messages

2

Walmart was sending I.M. related to her orders. Dkt. 76-3 at 168. I.M. continued to order from

3

Walmart, generally leaving the box checked that indicated she wanted order update text

4

messages sent to the phone number ending in 1019. Dkt. 76-2 at 8-13.

5

Although he knew who I.M. was and had her contact information because of other TCPA

6

cases1 he filed involving the number ending in 1019, the Plaintiff did not inform I.M. that he was

7

getting text messages that were meant for her from Walmart about her orders. Dkt. 76-3 at 170.

8

He also did not block the two short codes Walmart used to send the messages. Id. at 261-263.

9

The Plaintiff did not call Walmart to get it to stop until December of 2023 - well after this

10

litigation began. Dkt. 73-12 at 3. Instead, on January 2, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this case in

11

Clark County Washington Superior Court, serving Walmart with a copy of the complaint on

12

January 4, 2023. Dkt. 1. The case was removed to this Court on January 24, 2023. Id. The

13

Plaintiff contends that Walmart sent 15 additional texts after receipt of the complaint. Dkt. 72.

14
15

The parties now file cross motions for summary judgment and several motions to strike. The
motions to strike should be considered first and then the motions for summary judgment.

16

II.

17

DISCUSSION

A. MOTIONS TO STRIKE

18

1. Walmart’s Motions to Strike

19

In its response to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Walmart moves to strike

20

references in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 72 at 9-10), Plaintiff’s declaration

21

(Dkt. 73 at 5-6), and screenshots of emails from Walmart (Dkts. 73-4 and 73-5) related to two

22

phone calls the Plaintiff personally made to Walmart’s 1-800 number. Dkt. 82. The Plaintiff

23
24

1

According to the Plaintiff, since early 2021, he has filed around 40 TCPA lawsuits. Dkt. 76-3 at 233.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 7

1

purportedly recorded the calls and posted the calls on YouTube sometime in December 2023.

2

Dkt. 73 at 5-6. Walmart also asks the Court to strike references in Plaintiff’s motion for

3

summary judgment (Dkt. 72 at 10-17) and Plaintiff’s declaration (Dkt. 73 at 4) wherein the

4

Plaintiff discusses YouTube videos the Plaintiff allegedly made in December of 2022. Dkt. 82.

5

Walmart also asks the Court to strike exhibits attached to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary

6

judgment that appear to be FaceBook screenshots of children (Dkts. 73-13 - 74-15) and an

7

Amazon order for a watch (Dkt. 73-18). Id.

8
9

Walmart’s motion to strike the references to the YouTube recordings (Dkt. 82) should be
granted. The actual content of the conversations is not in the record. Evidence outside the

10

record is not considered on summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (“a party asserting that a fact

11

. . . is genuinely disputed must support that assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of the

12

record”). The Court is not obligated to go to YouTube to add to the record. Even if it were,

13

these recordings appear to be irrelevant to the key issue in the pending motions. They do not

14

relate to whether the text messages were “telephone solicitations” or “commercial text messages”

15

under the TCPA or CEMA, respectively.

16

Walmart’s motion to strike the screenshots of children on FaceBook and the Amazon

17

order (Dkt. 82) should be stricken as moot. While the evidence is of questionable relevance, it

18

was proffered in connection with issues unrelated to the critical question in deciding the

19

summary judgment motions.

20

In its Surreply, Walmart moves to strike portions of the Plaintiff’s reply to Walmart’s

21

response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 84) and portions of the Plaintiff’s

22

declaration offered in support of his reply (Dkt. 85) related to whether the number ending in

23

1019 is “residential.” Dkt. 87. Walmart also moves to strike portions of the Plaintiff’s reply to

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 8

1

Walmart’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 84) related to whether the

2

Plaintiff has standing. Id.

3

Walmart’s motion (Dkt. 87) should be stricken as moot. The Court need not reach the

4

issue of whether the phone number is “residential” to decide the motions for summary judgment.

5

Further, Walmart did not raise standing issues and the Court need not reach the question because

6

the motions for summary judgment can be decided on other grounds. The Court need not reach

7

Walmart’s additional arguments regarding whether Plaintiff’s reply to Walmart’s response to

8

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 84) was over the word limit, whether his reply

9

(Dkt. 84) contained new evidence, and whether Walmart’s surreply (Dkt. 87) was timely.

10

2. Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike

11

In his response to Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff moves to strike

12

portions of Walmart’s motion “implying [he] had a duty to mitigate damages,” implying that

13

I.M. could consent to the text messages, that I.M. found text messages about her orders helpful,

14

and portions of the Plaintiff’s wife’s deposition on what she considered telemarketing. Dkt. 77.

15

Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. 77) should be denied. The Plaintiff provides no legal basis

16

to support his motion. Moreover, these facts are largely background facts and provide context

17

for what happened. They help explain why Walmart continued to send order updates after the

18

Plaintiff texted “STOP” in response to three orders. In any event, these facts are of marginal

19

help in deciding the key question in the motions for summary judgment – whether the text

20

messages meet the TCPA and CEMA’s statutory definitions of prohibited texts.

21

In his reply to Walmart’s response to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the

22

Plaintiff moves to strike his ex-wife’s declaration (Dkt. 83-2), which was offered related to

23

whether the number ending in 1019 was truly a “residential” number as required under the

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 9

1

relevant statutes, an alleged transcript of the Plaintiff being interviewed by National Public Radio

2

about his TCPA litigation (Dkt. 83-3), a list alleged to be of the number of times the Plaintiff and

3

his wife visited Walmart (Dkt. 83-12), and several Walmart receipts alleged to be from

4

Plaintiff’s credit card (Dkt. 83-13) and portions of Walmart’s response to the Plaintiff’s motion

5

for summary judgment that referred to those materials (Dkt. 82). Dkt. 84.

6

The Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. 84) should be stricken as moot. This evidence was

7

offered to point to disputed facts on a separate element of Plaintiff’s claims – whether the phone

8

number was “residential” - and on whether Walmart had a viable affirmative defense of

9

“established business relationship.” The Court need not reach the issue of whether the phone

10

number was “residential” or if Walmart made a sufficient showing on its affirmative defense

11

because the motions for summary judgment can be decided based on different issues.

12

In response to Walmart’s motion to strike, which was in Walmart’s Surreply (Dkt. 87), the

13

Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Dkt. 87.” Dkt. 89. As stated above in

14

Section II.A.1., Walmart’s motion to strike (Dkt. 87) should be denied as moot. Accordingly,

15

Plaintiff’s motion to strike Walmart’s Surreply (Dkt. 89) should be denied as moot.

16
17

B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials

18

on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

19

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party is

20

entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient

21

showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the

22

burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1985). There is no genuine issue

23

of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 10

1

for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

2

(1986) (nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some

3

metaphysical doubt.”). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is

4

sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve

5

the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986);

6

T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

7

The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The court

8

must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must meet at trial,

9

which is a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254; T.W.

10

Elect. at 630. The court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the

11

nonmoving party only when the facts specifically attested by that party contradict facts

12

specifically attested by the moving party. The nonmoving party may not merely state that it will

13

discredit the moving party’s evidence at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial

14

to support the claim. T.W. Elect. at 630. Conclusory, non-specific statements in affidavits are

15

not sufficient, and “missing facts” will not be “presumed.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497

16

U.S. 871, 888–89 (1990).

17

C. FEDERAL LAW CLAIM: TCPA CLAIM

18

The Plaintiff asserts a TCPA claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and its implementing

19

regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. Dkt. 12. Walmart argues that the Plaintiff’s TCPA claim

20

should be dismissed because the text messages at issue were not “telephone solicitations,” as

21

required under the TCPA, but were updates to orders.

22
23

Section 227(c) of the TCPA directs the Federal Communication Commission to “promulgate
regulations under which ‘residential subscribers’ may request that their telephone numbers be

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 11

1

included in a national do-not-call registry and database, and to prohibit telephone solicitation to

2

‘any subscriber included in such database.’” Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., 50 F.4th 1217, 1223

3

(9th Cir. 2022)(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(3)(F)). Pursuant to § 227(c) of the TCPA’s

4

implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any

5

telephone solicitation to . . . [a] residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her

6

telephone number on the national do-not-call registry . . . .”

7

Both the TCPA § 227 and its implementing regulation 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, define

8

“telephone solicitation” as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of

9

encouraging the purchase . . . of . . . goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person . . . .”

10

47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(15). To determine whether the purpose of the

11

text messages at issue here were to “encourag[e] the purchase . . . of . . . goods, or services,” and

12

thus were “telephone solicitations” under § 227(c) and its regulations, courts in the Ninth Circuit

13

consider the content and context of the communications “with a measure of common sense.” See

14

Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2012); An Phan v. Agoda Co. Pte.

15

Ltd., 351 F. Supp. 3d 1257 (N.D. Cal 2018), aff'd 798 Fed. App'x 157 (9th Cir. 2020).

16

1. Content of Messages Demonstrates Texts Were Not Solicitations

17

Applying that “measure of common sense” here, the Plaintiff fails to point to issues of fact

18

that the content of any of the text messages was to “encourag[e] the purchase . . . of . . . goods or

19

services.” Walmart convincingly argues that the text messages were sent to facilitate fulfillment

20

of its customer’s previously placed orders and were informative only.

21

For example, Walmart sent messages that orders were ready for pick up: “ . . . Walmart: Part

22

of your order is ready for curbside pickup until Sat, Sep 03. . . .” Dkt. 12 at 19. Walmart sent

23

text messages regarding I.M.’s orders’ delivery status: “Great news, [I.M.]! Your Walmart

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 12

1

package is out for delivery and should arrive today. . .” Id. at 18. As requested by I.M., Walmart

2

sent text message updates that some items she ordered were unavailable: “Sorry, some items in

3

your Walmart order weren’t available. Review your order: https://w-mt.co/g/4GXMnv . . .” Id. at

4

9.

5

When items she ordered were unavailable or low in stock, Walmart offered her the

6

opportunity to approve or decline substitutions or change her account’s substitution preferences:

7

“[y]our Walmart order has substitutions. Anything you don’t want? Please let us know soon:

8

https://w-mt.co/g/4KyLN4 . . .” and “[s]ome items may be low in stock. Pick substitution

9

preferences for your upcoming Walmart order: https://w-mt.co/g/4NidiA . . .” Dkt. 12 at 9, 11.

10

(According to Walmart, the website links were to I.M.’s account; the Plaintiff did not have I.M.’s

11

permission to access the account, so the link took him to the general Walmart webpage. Dkt. 83-

12

1 at 3.) The Plaintiff argues that inclusion of this link makes the text message a commercial one.

13

Dkt. 72. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertions, a link to a company’s website, without more, does

14

not render a text message from that company a “telephone solicitation.” An Phan v. Agoda Co.

15

Pte. Ltd., 351 F. Supp. 3d 1257 (N.D. Cal 2018), aff'd 798 Fed. App'x 157 (9th Cir. 2020);

16

Vallianos v. Schultz, 2019 WL 4980649 at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2019)(“the mere inclusion of

17

a link to a website on which a consumer can purchase a product does not transform the whole

18

communication into a solicitation”). While the Plaintiff argues that the text messages offering

19

substitutions “offer goods and services,” he fails to consider that customers select their

20

substitution preferences at the time the order is placed (either the customer preselects

21

substitutions, selects no substitutions, or asks Walmart to select them). Dkt. 76-1 at 4-5.

22
23

Further, Walmart sent text messages when I.M. canceled her order: “As requested, we’ve
canceled your Walmart or-der. . .” Dkt. 12 at 19.

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 13

1

Nothing in the content of these messages could reasonably be construed as an encouragement

2

to the Plaintiff to purchase goods. They serve to merely inform I.M. that the order she placed

3

was ready for pick up, was out for delivery/has been delivered, certain items were unavailable,

4

substitutes for unavailable items were possible (she could adjust how substitutions were handled

5

on her account), or the order was canceled. While the Plaintiff contends that because Walmart is

6

a for-profit entity and all actions it takes are at least tangentially driven by its profit motive

7

(including any text messages it sends)(Dkts. 72 and 77), informational text messages, for

8

example, merely confirming commercial transactions which have been made, are not “telephone

9

solicitations” violative of the TCPA. See An Phan at 1262; Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B.,

10
11

2020 WL 61576, at *3 (D. Haw. Jan. 6, 2020), aff'd, 37 F.4th 538 (9th Cir. 2022).
2. Context of Messages Demonstrates Texts were not Solicitations

12

Applying a “measure of common sense” here, the Plaintiff has also failed to show that the

13

context in which the text messages were sent could reasonably be construed as an encouragement

14

to purchase goods or services from Walmart. The messages were sent after I.M. placed the

15

orders and related to ongoing business transactions. After the order was filled or canceled no

16

additional messages were sent about the order. New messages were only sent if I.M. placed a

17

new order. There is no evidence that they were sent to entice the Plaintiff to purchase anything.

18

The Plaintiff points to an out of circuit case, Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR

19

Network, LLC, 80 F.4th 466 (4th Cir. 2023), and argues that the context of the texts here –

20

messages from for-profit entities, means that their communications were commercial in nature.

21

Dkt. 77. The Plaintiff again asserts that as a for profit entity, everything Walmart does is for

22

profit. Id. Carlton is distinguishable.

23
24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 14

1

In Carlton, the defendant sent an unsolicited fax to the plaintiff chiropractic clinic, offering a

2

free digital book containing information about prescription drugs. 80 F.4th at 470. Drug

3

companies paid the defendant to include their products in the eBook. Id. The fax included a

4

pitch about the “virtues and quality” of the eBook. Id. The Carlton court found that the fax

5

constituted an “unsolicited advertisement” because the fax was “commercial in nature,” even

6

though the eBooks were offered for free. Id. at 472-474. The court explained that its conclusion

7

flowed “from the everyday understanding of the term ‘advertise.’ ‘Advertise’ customarily has a

8

distinctly commercial flavor, invoking a business solicitation, designed to attract clients or

9

customers and in the hopes to make a profit, directly or indirectly.” Id. at 472-73.

10

Unlike in Carlton, the text messages sent here were about orders which had already been

11

made – they were about ongoing or completed transactions. The text messages here did not

12

include a “pitch” to purchase goods. The faxes in Carlton were sent with the hope that future

13

transactions (the prescription and purchase of drugs listed in the eBook) would occur. The text

14

messages here were merely about already-made order fulfillment and not about possible future

15

purchases. Further, Carlton addresses the TCPA’s provision on “advertisement,” which is

16

defined separately under the regulation as “any material advertising the commercial availability

17

or quality of any property, goods, or services . . . .” at § 64.1200(f)(1). This definition is broader

18

then the definition of “telephone solicitation” found at § 64.1200(f)(15). Carlton is inapplicable.

19

The Plaintiff argues that the timing of when Walmart charges the customer (at the time of the

20

order if purchased with a gift card or electronic benefits transfer card or at the time of

21

pickup/delivery if purchased by debt card or credit card) makes at least some of these purchases

22

“future purchases.” Dkt. 72. This argument is without merit. In this case, text messages were

23

sent when I.M. completed her order, when funds were transferred is immaterial.

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 15

1

The Plaintiff’s contention, that any unsolicited communication from a for-profit entity has a

2

“commercial nexus” and so is a “telephone solicitation,” would improperly broaden the scope of

3

the TCPA’s definition of “telephone solicitation.” Walmart’s general goal to make a profit is

4

“simply too attenuated” to give rise to the implication that its purpose in sending the text

5

messages about I.M.’s orders was to coax the Plaintiff into making future purchases. See Smith

6

v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2017).

7

“Were this Court to hold otherwise, it would transform practically all communication from any

8

entity that is financially motivated and exchanges goods or services for money” into “telephone

9

solicitation,” which “would contravene the delineated definitions of that term” in 47 C.F.R. §

10

64.1200(f)(15). Id. at 1068.

11

The Plaintiff maintains that the cases Walmart cites don’t apply because the parties in those

12

cases consented to be contacted (either called or texted). Dkt. 77. He points out that I.M. could

13

not consent for him to be called. Id.

14

Walmart properly notes that whether the Plaintiff consented to the text messages is

15

immaterial to whether the text messages met the TCPA’s statutory requirement that the text

16

messages constituted “telephone solicitation” - that they were sent for “the purpose of

17

encouraging the purchase . . . of . . . goods, or services . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. §

18

64.1200(f)(15). Consent to receive the text messages is a separate defense, See 47 U.S.C. §

19

227(a)(4)(A), and Walmart does not assert it here.

20

The Plaintiff contends that he sent Walmart a “STOP” request and it continued to send him

21

text messages. Dkt. 77. He argues that the text messages did not specify that the “STOP”

22

request was merely about the single order. Id. The Plaintiff then makes a poor attempt at

23

analogizing his texting a four-letter response of “STOP” to a retailer sending him messages about

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 16

1

someone else’s order with the sexual assault of a woman. Id. This comparison is wildly

2

inappropriate, wholly unprofessional, and entirely off the mark.

3

Further, Plaintiff’s contention that Walmart did not specify that the “STOP” request related

4

to a single order is belied by the record. After the Plaintiff texted “STOP,” Walmart’s response

5

provides that they will “no longer receive m[essages] about [their] order.” Dkt. 76-1 at 3. In

6

context, these text messages are not reasonably construed to “STOP” all messages or to be

7

encouragement to purchase goods or services (“telephone solicitations”).

8

The Plaintiff argues that Walmart designed their order webpage so that customers would not

9

see the portion with the pre-marked checked box indicating that they wanted text updates about

10

orders and the phone number the customer listed. Dkt. 77. He fails to support this contention

11

with evidence, and it is pure supposition on his part. In any event, it is irrelevant to whether the

12

context of the order updating text messages were “telephone solicitations” or not.

13
14

3. Conclusion on Plaintiff’s TCPA claim
Applying the required “measure of common sense” here, the Plaintiff fails to point to

15

issues of fact that either the content or context of the text messages was to “encourag[e] the

16

purchase . . . of . . . goods or services.” Accordingly, he did not produce evidence that the text

17

messages were “telephone solicitations,” which is a required element for his TCPA claim. His

18

motion for summary judgment on his TCPA claim (Dkt. 72) should be denied and Walmart’s

19

motion (Dkt. 75) granted. The Court need not reach the other grounds advanced by Walmart as

20

to why the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his TCPA claim should be denied (i.e.

21

whether the phone number at issue was “residential” as required by the TCPA or whether the

22

Plaintiff had an ongoing business relationship with Walmart (an affirmative defense under the

23

TCPA)). The Plaintiff’s TCPA claim should be dismissed.

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 17

1

D. STATE LAW: CEMA CLAIM

2

The Plaintiff asserts a claim under CEMA, citing RCW 19.190.060 (Dkt. 12) in his Amended

3

Complaint and contends in his response to Walmart’s motion for summary judgment that he is

4

asserting a CEMA claim under RCW 19.190 “generally” (Dkt. 77). Even construing the

5

Plaintiff’s claim liberally, his CEMA claim should be dismissed.

6

Walmart points out that there is no private cause of action under CEMA citing Wright v. Lyft,

7

Inc., 189 Wn.2d 718, 723-726 (2017). Dkt. 75. That is not the end of the inquiry. Instead,

8

CEMA provides that a violation of its provisions are “unfair or deceptive act[s] in trade or

9

commerce and an unfair method of competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer

10

Protection Act.” RCW 19.190.060(2). The Washington Supreme Court has held that a violation

11

of RCW 19.190.060 constitutes a per se violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act,

12

RCW 19.86.090. Wright at 728-732. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s CEMA claim should be

13

analyzed by examining the statutory language. Id.

14

Pursuant to CEMA’s RCW 19.190.060(1), “[n]o person conducting business in the state may

15

initiate . . . an electronic commercial text message” to a Washington resident’s cellular

16

telephone. As is relevant here, an electronic commercial text message is defined as “an

17

electronic text message sent to promote . . . goods, or services for sale . . . .” RCW

18

19.190.010(3).

19

The Plaintiff has not carried his burden on summary judgment to show that there are issues of

20

fact as to his CEMA claim. The Plaintiff has failed to point to any evidence that the text

21

messages sent here were “commercial text messages” – that they were “sent to promote . . .

22

goods, or services for sale . . . .” RCW 19.190.010(3). As stated above in the TCPA claim

23

analysis, the messages were informational updates regarding orders. There is no mention of any

24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 18

1

particular product or service; they merely contain the logistics of order purchases. Reasonably

2

construed, the text messages in no way promoted future sales. Accordingly, there are no issues

3

of fact; Walmart is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiff’s CEMA claim. The

4

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his CEMA claim (Dkt. 72) should be denied,

5

Walmart’s motion on the claim (Dkt. 75) granted, and the CEMA claim should be dismissed.

6
7
8

III.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that:


9

Walmart’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 82) IS GRANTED, IN PART, and
STRICKEN AS MOOT, IN PART,

10



Walmart’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 87) IS STRICKEN AS MOOT,

11



Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 77) IS DENIED,

12



Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 84) IS STRICKEN AS MOOT,

13



Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 89) IS STRICKEN AS MOOT,

14



Walmart’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 75) IS GRANTED,

15



Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 72) IS DENIED, and

16



This case IS DISMISSED.

17
18
19

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2024.

20
21
22

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

23
24

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE - 19