"To establish a CPA violation, the plaintiff must prove five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice that (2) occurs in trade or commerce, (3) impacts the public interest, (4) and causes injury to the plaintiff in her business or property, and (5) the injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act." Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 602, 200 P.3d 695 (2009). We liberally construe the CPA.
We review a motion for summary judgment de novo. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009).
A genuine issue of material fact exists when reasonable minds could reach different conclusions. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009). Summary judgment is subject to a burden-shifting scheme.
The entrepreneurial aspect of a learned professional's conduct relates to the occurring in trade or commerce prong. See Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 602-03, 200 P. 3d 695 (2009). Washington courts have recognized that CPA claims may differ from an underlying medical malpractice action if the conduct complained of relates to entrepreneurial activities.
We review the superior court's summary judgment order de novo, and consider only the evidence and issues brought to the attention of the court. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009); RAP 9.12.
We review the superior court's summary judgment order de novo, and consider only the evidence and issues brought to the attention of the court. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009); RAP 9.12.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009) (quoting Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 483, 172 P.3d 705 (2007), and CR 56(c)). "When determining whether an issue of material fact exists, the court construes all facts and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party."Michael
"'Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."'" Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595, 601, 200 P.3d 695 (2009) (quoting Locke v. City of Seattle, 162 Wn.2d 474, 483, 172 P.3d 705 (2007)) (quoting CR 56(c)). A genuine issue of material fact exists where reasonable minds could differ on the facts controlling the outcome of the litigation.
(Id. ¶¶ 571-73.) As these allegations exemplify, the fashion in which Boeing has allegedly harmed Zunum is far from “exactly the same” as the fashion in which Zunum alleges Boeing's misconduct has or could harm the general public. See Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 200 P.3d 695, 700 (2009); see also A.H. Lundberg, 2016 WL 9226998, at *7-8.
Where a dispute is "essentially private," "it may be more difficult to show that the public has an interest in the subject matter. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wash. 2d 595, 605 (2009) ( quoting Hangman Ridge, 105 Wash. 2d at 791). "Ordinarily, a breach of a private contract affecting no one but the parties to the contract is not an act or practice affecting the public interst."